PR Plan for Kim Dotcom Arrest
Sim Ahmed made this Official Information request to New Zealand Police
The request was successful.
From: Sim Ahmed
Dear New Zealand Police,
At the Kim Dotcom hearings held over the last three days, it was revealed by members of the NZ Police service that there was a "PR and media plan" prepared before the raid on Dotcom's property.
I am requesting any documents relating to the handling and/or communication with media to be used following his arrest.
Thank you for your time,
Sim Ahmed
New Zealand Police
Dear Sir/Madam
Thanks for your enquiry.
We have forwarded your question onto the correct department and someone
will be in touch shortly.
Sincerely
Public Affairs Team
-----Sim Ahmed <[OIA #486 email]> wrote: -----
To: OIA requests at New Zealand Police <[New Zealand Police request email]>
From: Sim Ahmed <[OIA #486 email]>
Date: 09/08/2012 04:51PM
Subject: Official Information Act request - PR Plan for Kim Dotcom
Arrest
Dear New Zealand Police,
At the Kim Dotcom hearings held over the last three days, it was
revealed by members of the NZ Police service that there was a "PR
and media plan" prepared before the raid on Dotcom's property.
I am requesting any documents relating to the handling and/or
communication with media to be used following his arrest.
Thank you for your time,
Sim Ahmed
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Please use this email address for all replies to this request:
[OIA #486 email]
Is [New Zealand Police request email] the wrong address for Official
Information Act requests to New Zealand Police? If so, please
contact us using this form:
[1]http://fyi.org.nz/help/contact
Disclaimer: This message and any reply that you make will be
published on the internet. Our privacy and copyright policies:
[2]http://fyi.org.nz/help/officers
If you find this service useful as an OIA officer, please ask your
web manager to link to us from your organisation's FOI page.
show quoted sections
From: MCMAHON, Teresa
New Zealand Police
Dear Sim Ahmed
With reference to your request dated Thursday 9 August asking for
information about a communications plan for the Kim Dotcom arrest,
section 12(1) of the Official Information Act 1982 states that:
"Any person, being—
(a)A New Zealand citizen; or
(b)A permanent resident of New Zealand; or
(c)A person who is in New Zealand; or
(d)A body corporate which is incorporated in New Zealand; or
(e)A body corporate which is incorporated outside New Zealand but which
has a place of business in New Zealand,—
may request a Department or Minister of the Crown or organisation to make
available to him or it any specified official information".
Police therefore asks that you provide an address or other advice to show
you satisfy section 12 of the Official Information Act. Police will then
make a decision on your information request.
Thank you.
===============================================================
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: Sim Ahmed
Dear MCMAHON, Teresa,
Hello the address you can reach me at is as follows:
S Ahmed,
[personal info],
Kingsland,
Auckland,
New Zealand.
Yours sincerely,
Sim Ahmed
From: MCMAHON, Teresa
New Zealand Police
Thank you. Your information request is now being processed in accordance with the Official Information Act 1982.
show quoted sections
From: Sim Ahmed
Dear MCMAHON, Teresa,
I have not received a reply to my Official Information Act request, which should have been made by 6 September 2012.
I am requesting a review as to why my request has not been answered in 20 days.
Please update the situation.
Yours sincerely,
Sim Ahmed
From: COUGHLAN, Annie
New Zealand Police
Hi
A response to your request has been completed and will be sent shortly.
Kind regards
From: Sim Ahmed [mailto:[OIA #486 email]]
Sent: Tuesday, 11 September 2012 10:03
To: MCMAHON, Teresa
Subject: Internal review of Official Information Act request - PR Plan for Kim Dotcom Arrest
Dear MCMAHON, Teresa,
I have not received a reply to my Official Information Act request,
which should have been made by 6 September 2012.
I am requesting a review as to why my request has not been answered
in 20 days.
Please update the situation.
Yours sincerely,
Sim Ahmed
show quoted sections
From: MCMAHON, Teresa
New Zealand Police
===============================================================
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
Jason Frick left an annotation ()
With regards to assessing whether officials have appropriately applied section 9(2)(g)(i) you may look to refer to this guideline released by the Ombudsman
<http://www.ombudsman.parliament.nz/syste...>.
Pertinent aspects to consider include:
1. whether the information withheld was fact or opinion. section 9(2)(g)(i) only protects options not a description of what is going to happen (as one would expect would be included in a plan).
2. the relative seniority of the official who drafted the opinion. The guidelines note that:
"The seniority of the author is relevant to this issue. In general, if the free and frank opinions under consideration are those of senior managers, they would be expected by virtue of their position to continue to express their opinions freely and frankly in the future. However, junior employees might be more likely to be inhibited if their free and frank opinions were released. Professional policy advisers, that is, departmental officials, are expected to be more robust about their opinions than third parties from outside government who volunteer their opinion".
3. whether the content of the opinion redacted could be summarised/provided in a way where its frankness was not an issue. (i.e. the content of the opinion is provided without the affectation and editorialising).
5. whether there is overriding public interest in this particular case.
Given all these points I would have challenged this response. However, I see that the request is over a year old… It may be worth requesting again and seeing what information is received.
Things to do with this request
- Add an annotation (to help the requester or others)
- Download a zip file of all correspondence
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
Alex Harris left an annotation ()
The use of 9(2)(g)(i) to redact information looks dodgy, and in one case (the number of people arrested) blatantly incorrect. I suggest challenging this with the Ombudsman.
Link to this