Request information on CCAP (Criminal Charging Advisory Panel)
David Glass made this Official Information request to New Zealand Police
The request was partially successful.
From: David Glass
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
From: Ministerial Services
New Zealand Police
Kia ora
Police Ministerial Services are now on leave, with staff returning to the
office on 12 January 2026.
If it is an emergency please call 111. Otherwise we will respond on our
return.
Have a relaxing and safe Christmas break.
Mā te wā
Ministerial Services
Police National Headquarters
===============================================================
WARNING
The information contained in this email message is intended for the
addressee only and may contain privileged information. It may also be
subject to the provisions of section 50 of the Policing Act 2008, which
creates an offence to have unlawful possession of Police property. If you
are not the intended recipient of this message or have received this
message in error, you must not peruse, use, distribute or copy this
message or any of its contents. Also note, the views expressed in this
message may not necessarily reflect those of the New Zealand Police. If
you have received this message in error, please email or telephone the
sender immediately
From: Ministerial Services
New Zealand Police
Tēnā koe David,
I acknowledge receipt of your Official Information Act 1982 (OIA) request below.
Your reference number is IR-01-26-1065.
You can expect a response to your request on or before 13 February 2026 unless an extension is needed.
Ngā mihi
Jonelle|Advisor: Ministerial Services |(she/her)
Policy & Partnerships |Police National Headquarters |
-----Original Message-----
From: David Glass <[FOI #33422 email]>
Sent: Monday, 5 January 2026 3:32 pm
To: Ministerial Services <[email address]>
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Official Information request - Request information on CCAP (Criminal Charging Advisory Panel)
CAUTION: This email originated from outside the New Zealand Police Network. DO NOT click links or open attachments unless you recognise the sender and are assured that the content is safe.
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
-------------------------------------------------------------------
This is an Official Information request made via the FYI website.
Please use this email address for all replies to this request:
[FOI #33422 email]
Is [New Zealand Police request email] the wrong address for Official Information requests to New Zealand Police? If so, please contact us using this form:
https://fyi.org.nz/change_request/new?bo...
Disclaimer: This message and any reply that you make will be published on the internet. Our privacy and copyright policies:
https://fyi.org.nz/help/officers
If you find this service useful as an Official Information officer, please ask your web manager to link to us from your organisation's OIA or LGOIMA page.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
===============================================================
WARNING
The information contained in this email message is intended for the addressee only and may contain privileged information. It may also be subject to the provisions of section 50 of the Policing Act 2008, which creates an offence to have unlawful possession of Police property. If you are not the intended recipient of this message or have received this message in error, you must not peruse, use, distribute or copy this message or any of its contents. Also note, the views expressed in this message may not necessarily reflect those of the New Zealand Police. If you have received this message in error, please email or telephone the sender immediately
hide quoted sections
From: Ministerial Services
New Zealand Police
Tēnā koe David,
I acknowledge receipt of your Official Information Act 1982 (OIA) request below.
Your reference number is IR-01-26-1231.
You can expect a response to your request on or before 13 February 2026 unless an extension is needed.
Ngā mihi
Jonelle |Advisor: Ministerial Services |(she/her)
Policy & Partnerships |Police National Headquarters |
-----Original Message-----
From: David Glass <[FOI #33422 email]>
Sent: Monday, 5 January 2026 3:32 pm
To: Ministerial Services <[email address]>
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Official Information request - Request information on CCAP (Criminal Charging Advisory Panel)
CAUTION: This email originated from outside the New Zealand Police Network. DO NOT click links or open attachments unless you recognise the sender and are assured that the content is safe.
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
-------------------------------------------------------------------
This is an Official Information request made via the FYI website.
Please use this email address for all replies to this request:
[FOI #33422 email]
Is [New Zealand Police request email] the wrong address for Official Information requests to New Zealand Police? If so, please contact us using this form:
https://fyi.org.nz/change_request/new?bo...
Disclaimer: This message and any reply that you make will be published on the internet. Our privacy and copyright policies:
https://fyi.org.nz/help/officers
If you find this service useful as an Official Information officer, please ask your web manager to link to us from your organisation's OIA or LGOIMA page.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
===============================================================
WARNING
The information contained in this email message is intended for the addressee only and may contain privileged information. It may also be subject to the provisions of section 50 of the Policing Act 2008, which creates an offence to have unlawful possession of Police property. If you are not the intended recipient of this message or have received this message in error, you must not peruse, use, distribute or copy this message or any of its contents. Also note, the views expressed in this message may not necessarily reflect those of the New Zealand Police. If you have received this message in error, please email or telephone the sender immediately
hide quoted sections
I Brown left an annotation ()
It is odd, especially with two case numbers. It may just be a mistake on their part. You could reply and ask, or alternatively, simply monitor and see if it causes a problem down the track. The former might be best.
This is a very interesting request. It may require you to have a couple of goes at it to get all of the information that you want.
From: Ministerial Services
New Zealand Police
Criminal Charges Advisory Panel TOR v1.8 August 2025.pdf
1.4M
Download
View as HTML
OIA response letter IR 01 26 1231.pdf
467K
Download
View as HTML
Adult Resolution Decision Making Framework.pdf
4.9M
Download
View as HTML
Tēnā koe David
Please find attached the response and documentation relating to your
Official Information Act request, received by Police on 5 January 2026.
Ngā mihi
Lisa
Ministerial Services
Police National Headquarters
===============================================================
WARNING
The information contained in this email message is intended for the
addressee only and may contain privileged information. It may also be
subject to the provisions of section 50 of the Policing Act 2008, which
creates an offence to have unlawful possession of Police property. If you
are not the intended recipient of this message or have received this
message in error, you must not peruse, use, distribute or copy this
message or any of its contents. Also note, the views expressed in this
message may not necessarily reflect those of the New Zealand Police. If
you have received this message in error, please email or telephone the
sender immediately
Things to do with this request
- Add an annotation (to help the requester or others)
- Download a zip file of all correspondence (note: this contains the same information already available above).
Offensive? Unsuitable?
Requests for personal information and vexatious requests are not considered valid requests for Official Information (read more).
If you believe this request is not suitable, you can report it for attention by the site administrators
Report this request
David Glass left an annotation ()
Does anyone know why this request has been divided into two receipts? Do I need to do something?
Is this a tactic to hide information? Are they predetermining that some information will be released under one request, and other information under the second request will be denied?
By splitting the request, they hope to weaken the necessary exposure of all the information, e.g. This the information required for by the request, and this information should not be covered, and we don't think it should be covered by law because of this,..that,.. and those excuses.
Or is this overthinking the change in request? Is it normal? Could it just be handled by two departments and the allocation of people is easier? There is no reasons given.
Link to this