Dear New Zealand Police,

Please provide basic information on the Criminal Charging Advisory Panel. (CCAP) There is very little in the public area, and in legislation.

Please provide prosecuting agency’s statutory function documents and enforcement priority statements.

Please provide a time-line naming the panel members from 2000 to present. Also attendance\ non-attendance of meetings, and any 'other' informal gatherings, or being 'formal' representation of the the panel. Include any guests/attendees, or advisors that were not members but present at the panels/discussions.

Provide reporting channels (who do they report to), and where the panel sits in the policing community, who manages and sets the panel meetings, who funds it, who has authority over it, what media channels do they use to release decisions, etc

What communication is allowed from the people who are being discussed, victims, or representatives? Are staff/victim/support statements allowed? Who (positions, not person) creates the documents that the panel sees?

Please provide the panel's guidance and protocol documents, and panel evaluation criteria/methodology. Any further documents on responsibilities, and remunerations, prosecuting prosecution policy set out for different actions and criteria for the use of each enforcement tool, based on a clear understanding of the tool’s purpose. Provide the documents for guide in using the public interest test, public interest test (state it is a direct copy from the SGDG, justice interest test, etc

Please ask for any excusing from panel members, or conflicts of interests during the period of time, 2000 to present.

Provide a breakdown of the cases of the panel. Do not include any identifying information.
You could breakdown this information into quantifiable data, organised by year. But must include overall number, number dealing with staff, those also investigated by the IPCA, number placed into the system but were not put in front of panel, those cases put for charge,enforcement action advised, those cases put for employment matter, those cases not charged or employment matter, offence types. Include any data that is available to you in that quantitative form that has been produced from the CCAP information.

Please include any reviews, or informal/informal enquires that has included the area and authority of the CCAP, include the required guidelines for the risk commonly but not always called 'netwidening'.

You may refer to but only link to publicly available documents such as Solicitor-Generals-Prosecution-Guidelines-2025, etc.

Yours faithfully,
David Glass

Dear Ministerial Services,

IR-01-26-1231
Reply to 9 February 2026

[email address]

Tēnā koe Kylie Schaare

Thank you for your great background on the Criminal Charging Advisory Panel (CCAP). This is a response to your reply on the 9 February 2026 to the OIA request IR-01-26-1231. I am replying to the information you have supplied to allow you to correct any answers.

I am happy with the information given for the first Part (1) of the request.

Please provide basic information on the Criminal Charging Advisory Panel. (CCAP) There is very little in the public area, and in legislation. Please provide prosecuting agency’s statutory function documents and enforcement priority statements.

I seems you are not complying with the reply for the second Part (2), and section 18(f) of the OIA does not excuse it being answered.

Please provide a time-line naming the panel members from 2000 to present. Also attendance\ non-attendance of meetings, and any 'other' informal gatherings, or being 'formal' representation of the panel. Include any guests/attendees, or advisors that were not members but present at the panels/discussions.

The reasons section 18f of the OIA does not apply are;
• A timeline of the members can be sourced from Police Professional Conduct Manager (PPCM) who acts as secretariat or the Criminal Case Advisor (CCA). They have an email list of all panel members of the CCAP that is used for sending out preparation documents to panel members. This is a single source, that has a single person that is very familiar with the source. The information is easily copy and pasted into the OIA reply.
• The PPCM, or CCA also have clearly defined, and searchable ‘minutes’ document created by the PPCM who acts as secretariat. Minutes clearly notes where panel members are excused from meetings, and when panel members like the assistant commissioner do not attend meaning the deputy is the decision-maker of the panel. Since the document has been created by the Police Professional Conduct Manager who acts as secretariat or the Criminal Case Advisor, they will also be familiar with the documents. Quick, and without research.
• The importance of the information in situations where ‘If AC Deployment is unavailable, the Deputy Chair is the decision-maker’ is of great public interest.
• The CCAP panel ‘Terms of Reference’ clearly states attendance by non-panel members noted in the minutes document.
‘In attendance; 15. Wider attendance at meetings will be determined by agenda items and will be on an as needed basis’
The reasons section 18f of the OIA does not apply to the ‘other’ informal gatherings, or ’formal representation’ are;
• The informal attendance, or outside representations of the panel will be noted by the Police Professional Conduct Manager who acts as secretariat for the panel or PPC Criminal Case Advisor.
• where informal situations might not be known by Police Professional Conduct Manager who acts as secretariat they should be noted in the meeting documents of the panel. Also in a clearly defined document that the Police Professional Conduct Manager who acts as secretariat or PPC Criminal Case Advisor is familiar with.

Section 18(f) does not apply given;
• Police Professional Conduct Manager who acts as secretariat or PPC Criminal Case Advisor are specialists dealing with the panel, and
• either, depending on who actually crates the document, are a single source not requiring collaboration, and
• the panel documents are digital, searchable, and familiar to the secretariat, or CCA.

The information requires one person (un-substantive collation) to look at documents they are familiar with, and that are clearly defined (little research). This does not fall under 18(f) of the OIA.

Your answer to Part (3) has not correctly been answered and you are not complying with the OIA. The part is;
Provide reporting channels (who do they report to), and where the panel sits in the policing community, who manages and sets the panel meetings, who funds it, who has authority over it, what media channels do they use to release decisions, etc.

Where you answer is ‘The Chair is not required to report about the decisions of the Panel’
Who the CCAP reports to needs needs to be clarified. The Chair, or the deputy, is not required to report about the decisions of the panel. In the panel’s terms of reference, several reviews of the CCAP and their documents occured. The outcomes of each meetings also are reported to the CCA, who reports them to the District PPCM. And then the district PPCM could report to the ERS. And the CCA provides the meetings minutes to the IPCA.

Reporting generally insinuates who is overseeing and is generally responsible for the panels decisions. As the Chair, it would seem the Assistant Commisioner would provide a short summary at regular executive meetings and wuld be seen as a normal reporting channel. Are you saying this reporting does not happen, and the chair, or deputy is solely responsible with not oversight from others?

The CCA also collates reports panel data to the Director of I & C, yourself.

18(f) does not apply here. The documents are clear, and from a limited sources, i.e. chair, or deputy.
The information requires one person (un-substantive collation) to look at documents they are familiar with, and that are clearly defined (little research). This does not fall under 18(f) of the OIA.

Please clarify Part (6) of the OIA request. Where asked to ‘Provide the documents for guide in using the public interest test, public interest test (state it is a direct copy from the SGDG, justice interest test, etc.
Police relies on the Solicitor General’s Prosecution Guidelines

You never answer the question. What does the word ‘relies’ mean? Do the panel rely on a direct copy of the SDPG, or do they have a document that relies the SDPG only as a source? You then deny access to something that is used under 18(f) of the OIA.

This question does not suit using 18(f) of the OIA, as it is a yes/no answer. The documents should be known to the Police Professional Conduct Manager who acts as secretariat or PPC Criminal Case Advisor for the CCAP.

The information requires one person (un-substantive collation) to look at documents they are familiar with, and that are clearly defined (little research). This does not fall under 18(f) of the OIA.

I feel you are also not complying with the OIA with your answer to Part (7). Please ask for any excusing from panel members, or conflicts of interests during the period of time, 2000 to present.

CCAP has been functioning since December 2020 with meetings held every two weeks. Providing a response to this part of your request would require analysis of every meeting minute since 2021. Therefore, this part of your request is refused pursuant to section 18(f) of the OIA where the information requested cannot be made available without substantial collation or research. If you are able to refine your request to a particular meeting, then Police may revisit this response.

18(f) of the OIA does not apply here because the panel’s minutes of the meeting will clearly state, in a clearly defined part of a digital and searchable document held by the Police Professional Conduct Manager who acts as secretariat or PPC Criminal Case Advisor. The secretariat or CCA are familiar with the document, as they create the documents.

The information requires one person (un-substantive collation) to look at documents they are familiar with, and that are clearly defined (little research). This does not fall under 18(f) of the OIA.
Also the panel members are required in the terms of reference;

‘19. Any potential or known conflict of interest must be raised with the CCAP Chair prior to discussion on each matter before the panel’

Thank you for your current and future efforts.

Yours sincerely,

David Glass