Tēnā koe Ms Van Wey Lovatt
 
I acknowledge receipt of your Official Information Act (OIA) request
below, received by NZ Police on 4 February 2021.
 
Your request is being actioned pursuant to the OIA.
 
You can expect a response to your request on or before 5 March 2021.
 
Ngā mihi
Sarah
Ministerial Services
PNHQ

To: "OIA/LGOIMA requests at New Zealand Police"
<[New Zealand Police request email]>
From: "Amy S Van Wey Lovatt" <>
Date: 04/02/2021 09:22AM
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Official Information request - NZ Police understanding
of "intended recipient"

CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not
click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know
the content is safe.

Dear New Zealand Police,
I am a NZ citizen. I am writing to make an OIA request for all documents
held by the N Police which inform the NZ Police as to the meaning of
"intended recipient" in the context of private, personal communications.
To help clarify, sections 216A-B of the Crimes Act 1961 describe the
unlawful interception of private communications as having been intercepted
by a third party without the consent of the sender or the intended
recipient. Both the sender and intended recipient may forward or share
private, personal communications (e.g. email) to a third party, which may
be a breach of privacy, a breach of corporates regulations, or a breach of
confidence (not very nice), but not the same an offence under section 216B
of the Crimes Act 1961.
It is my understanding that NZ uses a common understanding approach to
interpretation of statutes. A common understanding would be that the
"intended recipient" would be the individual to whom the communication was
addressed. For instance, if there is a unique identifier, such as a
specified email address < Sam.James [at] police.govt.nz>, a badge number
if it were a constable, or a salutation which identifies a particular
individual (e.g., Dear Mr Sam James), the "intended recipient" would be
identified by their name, unique email address, or other unique identifier
(e.g. badge number). However, in this case, where I have sent a
communication to a general inbox, the "intended recipient" would be the
person with the expertise and authority to provide me with the
information. This interpretation appears to be consistent with every court
case I found in NZILL.
Again, I request the documents which inform the NZ Police as to the
definition of "intended recipient" in the context of personal, private
communications. I hope the explanation above provides the context for the
types of documents I am requesting.
To clarify: I am not seeking any legal help or legal interpretation. I am
only seeking documents the NZ Police use to inform their understanding. I
ask that all information be supplied through FYI.org.nz, in searchable,
electronic form (e.g. original pdf not a scanned document, tiff or giff).
Thank you for your assistance in this matter.
Kindest regards,
Amy S Van Wey Lovatt
-------------------------------------------------------------------
This is an Official Information request made via the FYI website.
Please use this email address for all replies to this request:
[FYI request #14602 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:
[1]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:
[2]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.

show quoted sections

Kia ora Amy

Please find attached the response to your Official Information Act
request, received by New Zealand Police on 4 February 2021.

Kind regards, Michelle

Ministerial Services PNHQ

===============================================================

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

Kia ora Ms Van Wey Lovatt
Please find attached the response to your query in relation to your OIA
request.
Ngā mihi
Sarah 
Ministerial Services
PNHQ
-----"Amy S Van Wey Lovatt"
<[FOI #14602 email]> wrote: -----
To: "OIA/LGOIMA requests at New Zealand Police"
<[New Zealand Police request email]>
From: "Amy S Van Wey Lovatt"
<[FOI #14602 email]>
Date: 01/03/2021 08:38AM
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: OIA response IR-01-21-3628

CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not
click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know
the content is safe.

Dear New Zealand Police,
I am quite confused by your response. Are you saying that the NZ Police
does not have any documents, including reference to case law or references
to legal statutes, which informs the NZ Police of the meaning of "intended
recipient". Does the NZ Police do not have any internal policies or
protocols on use of email or for other communications?
If a person searches FYI.org.nz for the words "intended recipient",
disclaimers from government agencies pop up, including those from the NZ
Police. NZ Police disclaimer is as follows:
"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."
Is it the position of the NZ Police that the NZ Police do not know the
meaning of the words the NZ Police use in the standard warning included in
email communications from the NZ Police?
To clarify, the OIA states:
document means a document in any form; and includes—
(a) any writing on any material:
(b) any information recorded or stored by means of any tape-recorder,
computer, or other device; and any material subsequently derived from
information so recorded or stored:
(c) any label, marking, or other writing that identifies or describes any
thing of which it forms part, or to which it is attached by any means:
(d) any book, map, plan, graph, or drawing:
(e) any photograph, film, negative, tape, or other device in which 1 or
more visual images are embodied so as to be capable (with or without the
aid of some other equipment) of being reproduced
Thus, if the meaning of "intended recipient" comes from case law, such as
CK (Entrepreneur Residence Visa) [2018] NZIPT 204692 (28 September 2018),
where at [38] the Judge describes the "intended recipient" as the person
the communication was addressed to at Immigration NZ (rather than the
agency), reference to this case would fulfill my OIA request.
If the meaning of "intended recipient" comes from the Oxford Learner's
Dictionary (a book), reference to the dictionary would fulfill my OIA
request. The Oxford Learner's Dictionary states:
recipient (noun) a person who receives something
intended (adjective) (1) that you are trying to achieve or reach
Putting these words together, the meaning of "intended recipient of a
communication" would be "the person you are trying to reach and have
receive the communication".
Given this email and my original OIA request satisfies the definition of
documents held by the NZ Police, then stating that my understanding is
consistent with the understanding held by the NZ Police, as outlined in my
initial request or in this clarifying response, would likewise satisfy my
OIA request.
Respectfully,
Amy S Van Wey Lovatt

show quoted sections

Kia ora Ms Van Wey Lovatt
Please find attached a further response to your query in relation to your
OIA.
request.
Ngā mihi
Sarah
Ministerial Services
PNHQ

-----"Amy S Van Wey Lovatt"
<[FOI #14602 email]> wrote: -----
To: "OIA/LGOIMA requests at New Zealand Police"
<[New Zealand Police request email]>
From: "Amy S Van Wey Lovatt"
<[FOI #14602 email]>
Date: 04/03/2021 03:50PM
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: [EXTERNAL] Re: OIA response IR-01-21-3628

CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not
click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know
the content is safe.

Dear New Zealand Police,
I am quite confused by your response. I have not asked for an opinion nor
have I asked for documents to be created.
document means a document in any form; and includes—
(a) any writing on any material:
(b) any information recorded or stored by means of any tape-recorder,
computer, or other device; and any material subsequently derived from
information so recorded or stored:
(c) any label, marking, or other writing that identifies or describes any
thing of which it forms part, or to which it is attached by any means:
(d) any book, map, plan, graph, or drawing:
(e) any photograph, film, negative, tape, or other device in which 1 or
more visual images are embodied so as to be capable (with or without the
aid of some other equipment) of being reproduced
I have asked for the documents used to inform the police's understanding
of the words they use in their standard email warning, in accordance with
the definition under the OIA: "(b) any information recorded or stored by
means of any tape-recorder, computer, or other device; and any material
subsequently derived from information so recorded or stored. (c) any
label, marking, or other writing that identifies or describes any thing of
which it forms part, or to which it is attached by any means:"
Information I have submitted to the NZ Police, are considered documents
held by the Police: "(b) any information recorded or stored by means of
any tape-recorder, computer, or other device; and any material
subsequently derived from information so recorded or stored".
The police have access to a dictionary which would then satisfy the
definition of information or documents held by the Police: "(d) any book,
map, plan, graph, or drawing".
The police have access to court documents and NZILL, which means that they
may cite particular cases which inform their understanding.: "(b) any
information recorded or stored by means of any tape-recorder, computer, or
other device; and any material subsequently derived from information so
recorded or stored".
The police have access to the internet, which means they have can find
information that way as it is electronically accessible and thus meets the
definition under the OIA: "(b) any information recorded or stored by means
of any tape-recorder, computer, or other device; and any material
subsequently derived from information so recorded or stored".
Again, I've asked for documents that the Police use to inform their
understanding of the words used by the Police, the words being "intended
recipient" of an email communication.
I am confused as to why the Police are finding such a simple request
difficult. I trust that you will be able to reference particular case law
or a dictionary.
Amy S Van Wey Lovatt

show quoted sections