I suspect NZ Police knows they don't have a lawful reason to extend the deadline on your request, otherwise they may have done so prior to the deadline.

Under the circumstances, an apology and an estimate of when you can receive a response is better than leaving you in the dark. But it doesn't change the fact that NZ Police is breaking the law.

I think it's likely that the delay is essentially due to the chronic under-resourcing of the OIA team operating at PNHQ. But the OIA doesn't allow for deadlines to be extended due to a heavy workload.

Complaint with the Ombudsman has been made.

I hope you also included NZ Police's unlawful delay in responding to your request in your complaint?

I sure did.

As of yesterday - the Office of the Ombudsman has written to the Commissioner of Police to commence the investigation.

Update received today.

Office of the Ombudsman has received a response from Police - and they are currently reviewing this.

Text below is from Ombudsman letter received 13 June 2024.

Appendix has been left out to avoid being ranty - per moderation policy.

External link mentioned is https://www.police.govt.nz/about-us/publ...

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Dear Mr White

Official Information Act investigation
New Zealand Police
Request for information relating to redactions to documents

I refer to Manager Alice Cameron’s letter of 13 May 2024, concerning your complaint about the decision of New Zealand Police (Police) on your request for information.
Ms Cameron advised you that she had written to Police seeking some further comments. I have now received Police’s response, and I am able to advise you of my final opinion on your complaint.
Having considered all the issues raised, I have now formed the opinion that:
1. Police’s decision on the part of your request for all information pertaining to the decision-making process regarding the Long request of 2020 and the Joseph request of 2018 was unreasonable, because it ought to have a record of the reasons why information was withheld;
2. Police’s response to the part of your request for the extent of the change between the redacted section of the document in the Long request and the same document in the Joseph request was unreasonable, because its response was incomplete; and
3. Police has acted contrary to law by failing to make a decision on your request within the statutory timeframe.

I attach in Appendix 1 extracts from Ms Cameron’s letter of 13 May 2024 to Police, which explain the basis of my opinion. As a result of that letter, Police wrote to you on 5 June 2024, and provided you with a speculative explanation about the redactions that it made to the Long request, and why the decision it made on that request was different to the decision it made on the Joseph request. It also advised that the redacted content in the Long response is substantially the same as the content that it released in the Joseph response, and apologised for its previous incomplete response to you.
I understand from your email of 5 June 2024 to Investigator Jessie Scott, that Police’s response indicates to you that it does not consistently apply section 6(c) of the Official Information Act 1982 (OIA) and that it does not keep records to document its reasoning when it makes the decision to redact information. You also advised that you are disappointed with the length of time it took Police to provide you with a complete response to your information request.

In Ms Cameron’s letter to Police, she advised that I would be likely to recommend that Police:
1. provide you with a speculative explanation as to why redactions were made under section 6(c) of the OIA to the Long request, and why the decisions on the Long and Joseph requests were different;
2. review its record-keeping practices with regard to documenting the rationale for its decisions to refuse or partially refuse information requests; and
3. apologise to you for its incomplete response and provide you with a response as to the extent of differences between the redacted content in the Long request and the released content in the Joseph request.

Police has now provided you with a response that addresses my first and third likely recommendations. Police has also advised my Office that it is currently working to publish the Police Instructions on its external webpage, including those at issue in the Long and Joseph requests.
In relation to my second likely recommendation, Police has advised that its current ICT infrastructure is not sophisticated enough to support the search of previous similar information requests, and that even if it was, Police staff would need to undertake significant work in the analysis of search results. I accept Police’s view that this is therefore not a realistic solution to the issue of consistency in decision-making. However, Police has proposed including a box in the OIA Request Cover Sheets (which it uses for information request sign-outs), in which the reasons for any redactions that have been made to information are noted. Police consider that this would help to ensure there is a recorded rationale for its decisions going forward.
Given that Police has already complied with my likely recommendations, it is not necessary for me to make any formal recommendation in this case.

I have now completed my investigation.

Yours sincerely

Peter Boshier
Chief Ombudsman