Interpretation of the IPCA Act 1988

JennyM made this Official Information request to Independent Police Conduct Authority

Independent Police Conduct Authority did not have the information requested.

From: JennyM

Dear Independent Police Conduct Authority,

To Whom It May Concern:

Would the IPCA please explain the following sections of the IPCA Act 1988. I may have further questions, depending upon the answers received.

Section 25, IPCA Act 1988
Protection and privileges of witnesses, etc
s25(4) Except in proceedings for perjury within the meaning of the Crimes Act 1961 in respect of sworn testimony given before the Authority, or for an offence against section 37,—
(a) no statement made or answer given by any person in the course of any investigation by or proceedings before the Authority shall be admissible in evidence against that or any other person in any court or in any inquiry or other proceeding; and

(b) no evidence in respect of proceedings before the Authority shall be given against any person.

1. In relation to s4(a), please interpret what the Act means by “any person”.
2. In relation to s4(a), please interpret what constitutes a “statement” or “answer”.
3. In relation to s4(a), what does “no statement made or answer given by any person …. shall be admissible in evidence …." mean?
4. In relation to s4(a), what does "in any court or in any inquiry or other proceeding” mean?
5. In relation to s4(b), what does “no evidence, in respect of proceedings before the Authority, shall be given against any person” mean?

Section 33, IPCA Act 1988
Proceedings privileged
s33(3) Anything said or any information given or any document or thing produced by any person in the course of any investigation by or proceedings before the Authority under this Act shall be privileged in the same manner as if the investigation or proceedings were proceedings in a court.

In relation to s33(3), please explain what "shall be privileged in the same manner as if the investigation or proceedings were proceedings in a court" means.

s37 Offences
s37 Every person commits an offence under this Act and is liable on conviction to a fine not exceeding $2,000 who,—
(c) makes any statement or gives any information to the Authority, or to any person exercising powers under this Act, knowing that the statement or information is false or misleading.

1. In relation to s37(c), please explain what constitutes a false statement or information.
2. In relation to s37(c), please explain what constitutes a misleading statement or [misleading] information.
3. In relation to s.37(c), please interpret "knowing [that the statement or information is false or misleading]"?

Yours faithfully,

Jenny Mondial

Link to this

From: IPCA Enquiries
Independent Police Conduct Authority

Email Waiver: Important notice

This email sent to you is a response from the IPCA to your email address
given by you as a result of your email/s to the IPCA. By responding to you
by email, the IPCA will not accept any responsibility whatsoever as a
result of other persons that may or shall have access to your email
address. It is important that you exercise care to ensure your email
address is protected.

CONTENTS OF THIS MESSAGE ARE NOT SUBJECT TO THE LEGAL RULES OF DISCLOSURE

WARNING

This e.mail, (including attachments) is intended solely for the person(s)
or entity to whom it is addressed and the information it contains is
confidential in terms of the Independent Police Conduct Authority Act
1988. Any disclosure, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this
e.mail may be unlawful.

If you have received this e.mail in error, please notify the sender by
return e.mail, fax (+64 4 499 2053), telephone 0800 503 728 or +64 4 499
2050 and delete the e.mail.

Link to this

From: Pieter Roozendaal
Independent Police Conduct Authority

Good morning

Please note that the Authority is not subject to the Official Information Act.

Please be advised that the words and content of the IPCA can be interpreted by:

1. section 2 of the Act; and
2. The Interpretation Act 1999; and
3. By applying the ordinary meaning to any word not defined in the above. Thus 'any person' means any human being.

It is not the role of the Authority to provide legal advice on any matter. If you wish to have a more detailed explanation beyond this you may wish to consider obtaining your own, independent legal advice.

Kind regards

Pieter Roozendaal
Manager: Complaints
Independent Police Conduct Authority, PO Box 25221, Wellington 6146, Aotearoa New Zealand

Ph:  +64 4 499 2050    Mob:  +64 27 434 1138    Fax: +64 4 499 2053
Email: [email address]

www.ipca.govt.nz

show quoted sections

Link to this

From: JennyM

Dear Pieter Roozendaal,

Thank you for your prompt reply.

In regard to reply and with regard for s.25(4), (a) which states:
"... no statement made or answer given by any person in the course
of any investigation by or proceedings before the Authority shall
be admissible in evidence against that or any other person in any
court or in any inquiry or other proceeding"

which organisation would be responsible for prosecuting a breach of s25(4) if it were known and able to be evidenced that the complainant in an IPCA investigation had taken copies of their sworn statements and other material given as evidence in that investigation, and had indicated the result of that investigation and had distributed it amongst other people and to an organisation and that information was now forming the basis of the defence in a court matter with another civil organisation.

Is this not a breach of s.25(4)(a)?
The information is in the exact form as it is in the IPCA investigation file.

Additionally, what would be the consequences if some of that information were also able to be proven to be untrue, or a forged copy of material which was unable to be verified as to its truthful content?

Yours sincerely,

JennyM

Link to this

From: Pieter Roozendaal
Independent Police Conduct Authority

Good afternoon

It would be for the Authority to determine whether any breach of the Act had occurred and whether that required prosecution of any person.

It is unlikely that someone in possession of their own statement and supporting material would be considered in breach of the Act. As the owner of the statement, it is theirs to deal with as they see fit, including using it in other proceedings. It would be difficult to speculate on the possible consequences if information in the statement was later found to be untrue or unverifiable since the consequences would be dependent on the specific circumstances.

Kind regards

Pieter Roozendaal
Manager: Complaints
Independent Police Conduct Authority, PO Box 25221, Wellington 6146, Aotearoa New Zealand

Ph:  +64 4 499 2050    Mob:  +64 27 434 1138    Fax: +64 4 499 2053
Email: [email address]

www.ipca.govt.nz

show quoted sections

Link to this

From: JennyM

Dear Pieter Roozendaal,

Your answer is in contradiction to the provision in the Act, for such information to be inadmissible in other circumstances, and in essence infers the provision in the Act is redundant.

If this is the case, what is the purpose of such a provision within the enactment and what is to prevent any person using any information any time any where, not matter its truth or otherwise despite such a provision being made in the Act?

In regard to the information which has no verification, it is a copy of a 'transcript' of a teleconference within a matter, which has been typed up by a person who was a party to it, recorded it at home, and was tendered to the IPCA as a true document. s.35(3) of the Disputes Tribunal Rules Act 1989 prevents parties from obtaining recordings or copies of that which is intended as a record for the Referee.

(3) Nothing in this rule enables a person to search, inspect, or take a copy of, or limits or affects any entitlement that any parties to an appeal to a District Court have under the Act or under
rules of court to access or be served with,—
(a) the record that section 51(2) of the Act requires a Referee to keep;

The Court in that matter has already stated no legal copy has been made or furnished.
If it is not real, and has no provenance, and cannot be verified, it must be a forgery.
Even if the person's own recording still exists, it is not a verifiable recording nor admissible as it was taken without advising the other parties, and without their permission.
This forgery was presented to the IPCA as a real document "transcript of teleconference" with no way of the investigation verifying the truthfulness of it, then or now.
The investigators did not verify the truthfulness of it and there is no evidence of correspondence questioning its veracity.
The person's barrister has confirmed this person did the recording from their home.
The other parties were unaware this recording was being made.
The speculation as to mal-intent is strong given the person was found by a civil tribunal to have deprived a person of their property, contrary to the Police position.

Yours sincerely,

JennyM

Link to this

Liam Stoneley left an annotation ()

The IPCA have been very clear: seek your own independent legal advice. They are not there to tell you the answer to your legal questions, and they are not subject to the OIA. I applaud them for their patience and generous answers so far...

Link to this

JennyM left an annotation ()

Liam, did I ask for your opinion? If you don't work for IPCA, please don't say anything not helpful. You have NO idea why I am asking what I am.

Link to this

From: JennyM

Dear Pieter Roozendaal,

In relation to my inquiry regarding application of s25(4) IPCA Act, please provide me with copies of documents or emails regarding the agency's policies or internal guidance to staff on implementing aspects of legislation this aspect of the legislation.

Yours sincerely,

JennyM

Link to this

Thomas Roberts left an annotation ()

And they will do that because... why exactly?

Link to this

From: Pieter Roozendaal
Independent Police Conduct Authority

Good morning

Please note that the Authority does not have, nor does it need to have, a policy on how to manage section 25(4). The section stands on its own and any alleged breach of its provisions would simply be managed according to the circumstances of the breach.

Accordingly I am unable to provide you with anything since it does not exist.

Pieter Roozendaal
Manager: Complaints
Independent Police Conduct Authority, PO Box 25221, Wellington 6146, Aotearoa New Zealand

Ph:  +64 4 499 2050    Mob:  +64 27 434 1138    Fax: +64 4 499 2053
Email: [email address]

www.ipca.govt.nz

show quoted sections

Link to this

Things to do with this request

Independent Police Conduct Authority only: