Tactical Options Reporting Data January-June 2017
Mark Hanna made this Official Information request to New Zealand Police
The request was partially successful.
From: Mark Hanna
Tēnā koe,
In December 2016, I was told that there had been a delay in the publishing of annual and biannual Tactical Options Research Reports, which had not been published since July 2015 when the report for data up to December 2014 was published. I was told this delay was due to a technical fault in the TOR database which had since been fixed, though there were carry-on issues that were still being resolved (ref 16/7758/1).
In March 2017, 6 months of tactical options reporting (TOR) data was released under the Official Information Act for the 1 July - 31 December 2016 reporting period (ref 16/11336).
I would like to request some more information regarding tactical options reporting data.
1. An estimate of when the next TOR report(s) will be published, and the reporting periods they will cover.
1a. Copies of any current drafts of TOR report(s).
1b. If there are no current drafts of TOR report(s), or if no report is currently being created (as was reported in the March 2017 release), please give the reason why not.
2. TOR data for the 1 January - 30 June 2017 reporting period, in the same format as was released for the July - December 2016 reporting period.
2a. The number, and percentage, of the total set of TOR events that have completed the two-stage review process. For comparison, the March 2017 release said 11% of the events in that set of data had not completed this process, whereas it also said that this was the case for 0.2% of the events used to create the most recent biannual report.
2b. Any other relevant caveats regarding limitations of this dataset.
Please provide the TOR data in a machine-readable format such as CSV or XSLX.
In the data released in March, the following information was withheld entirely "as they may contain free-text (including names)":
Your [Reporter] Role
[Subject] Role
Relevant factors
Subject Weapon
Subject behaviours [for all Tactical Options]
Handcuff Types [for all uses of Handcuff/Restraints]
Technique [for all uses of Empty Hand tactics]
Reason no warning [for all uses of TASER]
Other tactic [type] [for all uses of Other tactics]
Most effective tactic
Subject resolution
Staff Injury: type
Staff Injury By Police: Actions
Staff Injury By Equipment
Staff Injury By Equipment: Failure
Staff Injury By Other
SRBA: Why Not
SRBA: Negative How
I would ask that you consider whether, as required by s9(2)(a) of the Official Information Act, it is *necessary* to withhold all of this information in order to protect the privacy of natural persons. I expect this is not the case, and it would be preferable if only that information which it is necessary to withhold for that reason should be withheld, rather than the entire content of these columns.
I understand that this would likely require significantly more work before the data is fit for release. I would be happy to consult with you regarding this part of my request if necessary, to discuss potential compromises that will allow more of the data to be released without requiring a charge or being refused under s18(f) of the Official Information Act.
Nāku, nā,
Mark Hanna
New Zealand Police
Hi Mark,
Thank you for your email.
This request has been sent to the appropriate department for follow up and
they will make contact with you directly.
Thank you,
New Zealand Police
-----Mark Hanna <[FYI request #6558 email]> wrote:
-----
To: OIA/LGOIMA requests at New Zealand Police <[New Zealand Police request email]>
From: Mark Hanna <[FYI request #6558 email]>
Date: 16/09/2017 10:20PM
Subject: Official Information request - Tactical Options Reporting Data
January-June 2017
Tēnā koe,
In December 2016, I was told that there had been a delay in the publishing
of annual and biannual Tactical Options Research Reports, which had not
been published since July 2015 when the report for data up to December
2014 was published. I was told this delay was due to a technical fault in
the TOR database which had since been fixed, though there were carry-on
issues that were still being resolved (ref 16/7758/1).
In March 2017, 6 months of tactical options reporting (TOR) data was
released under the Official Information Act for the 1 July - 31 December
2016 reporting period (ref 16/11336).
I would like to request some more information regarding tactical options
reporting data.
1. An estimate of when the next TOR report(s) will be published, and the
reporting periods they will cover.
1a. Copies of any current drafts of TOR report(s).
1b. If there are no current drafts of TOR report(s), or if no report is
currently being created (as was reported in the March 2017 release),
please give the reason why not.
2. TOR data for the 1 January - 30 June 2017 reporting period, in the same
format as was released for the July - December 2016 reporting period.
2a. The number, and percentage, of the total set of TOR events that have
completed the two-stage review process. For comparison, the March 2017
release said 11% of the events in that set of data had not completed this
process, whereas it also said that this was the case for 0.2% of the
events used to create the most recent biannual report.
2b. Any other relevant caveats regarding limitations of this dataset.
Please provide the TOR data in a machine-readable format such as CSV or
XSLX.
In the data released in March, the following information was withheld
entirely "as they may contain free-text (including names)":
Your [Reporter] Role
[Subject] Role
Relevant factors
Subject Weapon
Subject behaviours [for all Tactical Options]
Handcuff Types [for all uses of Handcuff/Restraints]
Technique [for all uses of Empty Hand tactics]
Reason no warning [for all uses of TASER]
Other tactic [type] [for all uses of Other tactics]
Most effective tactic
Subject resolution
Staff Injury: type
Staff Injury By Police: Actions
Staff Injury By Equipment
Staff Injury By Equipment: Failure
Staff Injury By Other
SRBA: Why Not
SRBA: Negative How
I would ask that you consider whether, as required by s9(2)(a) of the
Official Information Act, it is *necessary* to withhold all of this
information in order to protect the privacy of natural persons. I expect
this is not the case, and it would be preferable if only that information
which it is necessary to withhold for that reason should be withheld,
rather than the entire content of these columns.
I understand that this would likely require significantly more work before
the data is fit for release. I would be happy to consult with you
regarding this part of my request if necessary, to discuss potential
compromises that will allow more of the data to be released without
requiring a charge or being refused under s18(f) of the Official
Information Act.
Nāku, nā,
Mark Hanna
-------------------------------------------------------------------
This is an Official Information request made via the FYI website.
Please use this email address for all replies to this request:
[FYI request #6558 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
From: RIORDAN-EDMONDS, Daniel
New Zealand Police
Dear Mr Hanna
I write to confirm receipt of your request, under the Official Information
Act 1982 (OIA), for information and copies of TOR reports.
Your request is being considered in accordance with the OIA and you will
receive a response no later than 20 working days.
Kind regards,
[1]New Daniel Riordan-Edmonds
Zealand Advisor | Ministerial Services | New Zealand Police
Police E: [email address]
Logo Police National Headquarters. 180 Molesworth Street, Thorndon, PO Box 3017, Wellington 6011 [2]www.police.govt.nz
Safer Communities Together
[3]http://nzpintranet/groups/PublicAffairs/... NZ Police on [5]http://nzpintranet/groups/PublicAffairs/... Follow [7]http://nzpintranet/groups/PublicAffairs/... NZ Police
[4]Facebook [6]@NZPolice on
[8]YouTube
===============================================================
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
References
Visible links
2. http://www.police.govt.nz/
4. https://www.police.govt.nz/facebook
6. https://twitter.com/NZPolice
8. https://www.youtube.com/user/policenz
From: DONOHUE, Mary
New Zealand Police
Dear Mr Hanna,
I’m responding to your Official Information Act request received on 16^th
September 2017 and given the reference number 16/7758/11 where you asked
for more information regarding tactical options reporting data.
As stated in the previous OIA (Ref 16/11336) the variables we have
previously redacted may contain free-text ( including names) and as such
were redacted under section 9(2)(a) of the Act. To be able to provide this
information while still protecting individuals’ privacy would require,
either:
a) Police manually examine approximately 127,500 cells (51 columns x
2,500 rows (for 6 months data)) and remove if necessary. Assuming 5
seconds per cell this would require 177 hours. As such, in accordance with
the Ministry of Justice guidelines, Police would charge for 176 hours (the
first hour would be free of charge) for a total cost of $13,376 (at a rate
of $76 per hour) or this would be refused under section 18(f) (substantial
collation)
b) Alternatively, Police could recode these variables, which would
require Police creating new data in order to facilitate your request and
would therefore be refused under s18(e) (is not held). Furthermore, as
only two people in Police have sufficient understanding of the TOR data
to do this reliably, and whose diversion from core business would have a
substantial and unreasonable impact on the agency’s other operations –
Police would not be able to offer a charge to cover the additional time.
However, in order to facilitate your request, Police are willing to recode
some of these variables, so long as the total time required to prepare the
dataset remains under one hour (in line with Ministry of Justice
guidelines). As such, we would recode variables for which we already have
a robust recoding technique established (but which has not yet been
applied to this current dataset). This would likely include Subject
relevant factors and subject weapon types.
If you have any specific variables you require, then we could look at
providing a recoded variable (so long as the total time to produce the
dataset remains under one hour).
Until I know if you require any specific variables recoded I am unable to
continue with the processing of your request. I look forward to your
reply.
Kind regards
Mary
MDBK98
===============================================================
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: Mark Hanna
Kia ora Mary,
Thanks so much for explaining that all to me. I expected something like this would likely be the case, and I appreciate the willingness to recode some of these variables to facilitate my request.
The columns that I am most interested in having added to the data set are "Subject Weapon", "Reason no warning [for all uses of TASER]", and "Other tactic [type] [for all uses of Other tactics]".
I'm glad that subject weapon is one of the examples you gave of a column that might be more easily recoded, so I hope this would be straightforward for Police to recode in a way that would allow it to be released.
Regarding the other two columns, I expect they will be blank for the vast majority of entries. In the previously released set of data, 97 incidents involving a TASER discharge were recorded, and I expect few of these would require the "Reason no warning" field to be filled out.
Likewise, in the previous dataset there were 123 reported uses of "Other" tactics, so I would hope if this couldn't be recoded it would at least not take much time to check it manually.
If, alongside these columns, there would also be time to include the "Relevant factors" column without incurring a charge, I would appreciate it if that could also be included.
Ngā mihi,
Mark Hanna
From: DONOHUE, Mary
New Zealand Police
Hi Mark,
Thanks for your reply.
Based on your response Police are willing to recode the "Subject Weapon" and, if time permits, the "subject relevant factors" fields.
For the "Other tactic" and "Reason no warning" fields, these are solely free-text fields which we do not currently have a recording process for. However due to the relatively low number of cases for each field we believe that we can redact any personal information that may exist in these cells, within the one-hour timeframe .
During this process, it may be necessary to redact additional content in the free-text fields for reasons other than privacy (for example, under sections 6(c) or 9(2)(g)(i)). The reasons for any redaction will be noted in the cells.
Also, please be aware that the content in the "Other tactic" fields are particularly prone to data entry errors. Police will not be investigating nor correcting or recoding any data errors.
If this is acceptable to you, please let me know and we will progress your request.
Kind regards
Mary
show quoted sections
From: Mark Hanna
Kia ora Mary,
Thank you, that approach sounds good to me. I appreciate the warning that the content of "Other tactic" fields are particularly prone to data entry errors, and will make sure I keep this in mind when viewing the data.
Ngā mihi,
Mark Hanna
From: RIORDAN-EDMONDS, Daniel
New Zealand Police
Dear Mr Hanna
I refer to your Official Information Act request of 18 October 2017,
requesting information and copies of TOR reports
Pursuant to section 15A of the Official Information Act 1982, I’m writing
to advise you of the requirement to extend the time limit to respond to
your request. The period of the extension is until 31 October 2017.
The reason for the extension is that the time required for the
consultations necessary, is such that a proper response cannot reasonably
be made within the original time limit.
You have the right, under section 28(3) of the Official Information Act
1982, to ask the Ombudsman to investigate and review the decision to
extend the time limit for deciding upon your request.
Kind regards,
[1]New Daniel Riordan-Edmonds
Zealand Advisor | Ministerial Services | New Zealand Police
Police E: [email address]
Logo Police National Headquarters. 180 Molesworth Street, Thorndon, PO Box 3017, Wellington 6011 [2]www.police.govt.nz
Safer Communities Together
[3]http://nzpintranet/groups/PublicAffairs/... NZ Police on [5]http://nzpintranet/groups/PublicAffairs/... Follow [7]http://nzpintranet/groups/PublicAffairs/... NZ Police
[4]Facebook [6]@NZPolice on
[8]YouTube
===============================================================
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
References
Visible links
2. http://www.police.govt.nz/
4. https://www.police.govt.nz/facebook
6. https://twitter.com/NZPolice
8. https://www.youtube.com/user/policenz
From: RIORDAN-EDMONDS, Daniel
New Zealand Police
image001.gif
4K
Download
image002.gif
0K
Download
image003.gif
0K
Download
image004.gif
2K
Download
Mark Hanna.pdf
122K
Download
View as HTML
Dear Mr Hanna
Please find attached Police’s response to your OIA.
Kind regards,
[1]New Daniel Riordan-Edmonds
Zealand Advisor | Ministerial Services | New Zealand Police
Police E: [email address]
Logo Police National Headquarters. 180 Molesworth Street, Thorndon, PO Box 3017, Wellington 6011 [2]www.police.govt.nz
Safer Communities Together
[3]http://nzpintranet/groups/PublicAffairs/... NZ Police on [5]http://nzpintranet/groups/PublicAffairs/... Follow [7]http://nzpintranet/groups/PublicAffairs/... NZ Police
[4]Facebook [6]@NZPolice on
[8]YouTube
===============================================================
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
References
Visible links
2. http://www.police.govt.nz/
4. https://www.police.govt.nz/facebook
6. https://twitter.com/NZPolice
8. https://www.youtube.com/user/policenz
From: Mark Hanna
Tēnā koe,
It looks like the spreadsheet attachment was not delivered with your last email. Could you please try sending that attachment again?
Ngā mihi,
Mark Hanna
From: RIORDAN-EDMONDS, Daniel
New Zealand Police
Hi Mark
Apologies for that - I have attached the spreadsheet.
Thanks,
Daniel
show quoted sections
From: Mark Hanna
Kia ora,
I am unclear as to why the draft reports I requested in part 1a of my request have been withheld under s9(2)(g)(i) of the OIA. Could you please confirm that the following questions, taken from the Ombudsman's guidance note on this section of the OIA (http://www.ombudsman.parliament.nz/syste...), have been considered?
(1) How would disclosure of the information at issue inhibit the free and frank expression of opinions in future?
(2) How would the inhibition of such free and frank expression of opinions prejudice the effective conduct of public affairs?
(3) Why is this predicted prejudice so likely to occur that it is necessary to withhold the information in the circumstances of the particular case?
The guidance note also says that it should be considered if there is "any factual information which could be made available" and notes that "Often information of a background or factual nature can be separated from that which contains expressions of opinion".
With the information available to me, it doesn't seem justified for this information to have been withheld in full in this manner. The content of previous reports have been almost entirely (if not entirely) factual in nature, and I have not been given reason to expect this will not be the case with the current draft reports once they are published.
I ask that you reconsider the release of the requested draft reports, otherwise I intend to take this issue to the Office of the Ombudsman.
Ngā mihi,
Mark Hanna
From: Mark Hanna
Kia ora,
Could you please let me know if you've received my last email, regarding the withholding of the current draft TOR reports under s9(2)(g)(i) of the OIA, and when I should expect a response? I'd appreciate it if I could receive this by tomorrow at the latest, to help me decide whether or not I should pursue this issue with the Office of the Ombudsman.
Ngā mihi,
Mark Hanna
From: RIORDAN-EDMONDS, Daniel
New Zealand Police
Hi there
I no longer work for the New Zeleand Police.
Please contact Teresa McMahon - [email address] or Jason
Smith - [email address]
Kind regards,
Daniel Riordan-Edmonds
From: Mark Hanna
Tēnā koutou,
In sending a follow-up message regarding an OIA request (ref 16/7758/11) to Daniel Riordan-Edmonds, who had been handling my request, I have been informed that they no longer work for New Zealand Police.
Please find below the follow-up messages I sent on 2017-10-31 and this morning, respectively:
==========
Kia ora,
I am unclear as to why the draft reports I requested in part 1a of my request have been withheld under s9(2)(g)(i) of the OIA. Could you please confirm that the following questions, taken from the Ombudsman's guidance note on this section of the OIA (http://www.ombudsman.parliament.nz/syste...), have been considered?
(1) How would disclosure of the information at issue inhibit the free and frank expression of opinions in future?
(2) How would the inhibition of such free and frank expression of opinions prejudice the effective conduct of public affairs?
(3) Why is this predicted prejudice so likely to occur that it is necessary to withhold the information in the circumstances of the particular case?
The guidance note also says that it should be considered if there is "any factual information which could be made available" and notes that "Often information of a background or factual nature can be separated from that which contains expressions of opinion".
With the information available to me, it doesn't seem justified for this information to have been withheld in full in this manner. The content of previous reports have been almost entirely (if not entirely) factual in nature, and I have not been given reason to expect this will not be the case with the current draft reports once they are published.
I ask that you reconsider the release of the requested draft reports, otherwise I intend to take this issue to the Office of the Ombudsman.
Ngā mihi,
Mark Hanna
==========
Kia ora,
Could you please let me know if you've received my last email, regarding the withholding of the current draft TOR reports under s9(2)(g)(i) of the OIA, and when I should expect a response? I'd appreciate it if I could receive this by tomorrow at the latest, to help me decide whether or not I should pursue this issue with the Office of the Ombudsman.
Ngā mihi,
Mark Hanna
From: MCMAHON, Teresa
New Zealand Police
Dear Mr Hanna
Thank you for your email of 6 November 2017.
Your questions are being considered and you will get a further response.
Ministerial Services
Police National Headquarters / New Zealand Police / Nga Pirihimana O
Aotearoa
180 Molesworth Street, PO Box 3017, Wellington 6140 [1]www.police.govt.nz
DDI: +64 4 474 9469 / ext 44069
To: OIA/LGOIMA requests at New Zealand Police
<[2][New Zealand Police request email]>
From: Mark Hanna <[3][FYI request #6558 email]>
Date: 06/11/2017 11:08AM
Subject: Re: Official Information request - Tactical Options Reporting
Data January-June 2017
Tēnā koutou,
In sending a follow-up message regarding an OIA request (ref 16/7758/11)
to Daniel Riordan-Edmonds, who had been handling my request, I have been
informed that they no longer work for New Zealand Police.
Please find below the follow-up messages I sent on 2017-10-31 and this
morning, respectively:
==========
Kia ora,
I am unclear as to why the draft reports I requested in part 1a of my
request have been withheld under s9(2)(g)(i) of the OIA. Could you please
confirm that the following questions, taken from the Ombudsman's guidance
note on this section of the OIA ( [4]
http://www.ombudsman.parliament.nz/syste.. .), have been considered?
(1) How would disclosure of the information at issue inhibit the free and
frank expression of opinions in future?
(2) How would the inhibition of such free and frank expression of opinions
prejudice the effective conduct of public affairs?
(3) Why is this predicted prejudice so likely to occur that it is
necessary to withhold the information in the circumstances of the
particular case?
The guidance note also says that it should be considered if there is "any
factual information which could be made available" and notes that "Often
information of a background or factual nature can be separated from that
which contains expressions of opinion".
With the information available to me, it doesn't seem justified for this
information to have been withheld in full in this manner. The content of
previous reports have been almost entirely (if not entirely) factual in
nature, and I have not been given reason to expect this will not be the
case with the current draft reports once they are published.
I ask that you reconsider the release of the requested draft reports,
otherwise I intend to take this issue to the Office of the Ombudsman.
Ngā mihi,
Mark Hanna
==========
Kia ora,
Could you please let me know if you've received my last email, regarding
the withholding of the current draft TOR reports under s9(2)(g)(i) of the
OIA, and when I should expect a response? I'd appreciate it if I could
receive this by tomorrow at the latest, to help me decide whether or not I
should pursue this issue with the Office of the Ombudsman.
Ngā mihi,
Mark Hanna
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Please use this email address for all replies to this request:
[5][FYI request #6558 email]
Disclaimer: This message and any reply that you make will be published on
the internet. Our privacy and copyright policies:
[6]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
From: MCMAHON, Teresa
New Zealand Police
Dear Mr Hanna
Just to update you, you should get a substantive response based on the
points you have raised. I cannot put an exact date on that yet, but it
should be within the next 10 working days.
From: MCMAHON, Teresa
Sent: Tuesday, 7 November 2017 10:05 a.m.
To: '[FYI request #6558 email]'
<[FYI request #6558 email]>
Subject: FW: Re: Official Information request - Tactical Options Reporting
Data January-June 2017
Dear Mr Hanna
Thank you for your email of 6 November 2017.
Your questions are being considered and you will get a further response.
Ministerial Services
Police National Headquarters / New Zealand Police / Nga Pirihimana O
Aotearoa
180 Molesworth Street, PO Box 3017, Wellington 6140 [1]www.police.govt.nz
DDI: +64 4 474 9469 / ext 44069
To: OIA/LGOIMA requests at New Zealand Police
<[2][New Zealand Police request email]>
From: Mark Hanna <[3][FYI request #6558 email]>
Date: 06/11/2017 11:08AM
Subject: Re: Official Information request - Tactical Options Reporting
Data January-June 2017
Tēnā koutou,
In sending a follow-up message regarding an OIA request (ref 16/7758/11)
to Daniel Riordan-Edmonds, who had been handling my request, I have been
informed that they no longer work for New Zealand Police.
Please find below the follow-up messages I sent on 2017-10-31 and this
morning, respectively:
==========
Kia ora,
I am unclear as to why the draft reports I requested in part 1a of my
request have been withheld under s9(2)(g)(i) of the OIA. Could you please
confirm that the following questions, taken from the Ombudsman's guidance
note on this section of the OIA ( [4]
http://www.ombudsman.parliament.nz/syste.. .), have been considered?
(1) How would disclosure of the information at issue inhibit the free and
frank expression of opinions in future?
(2) How would the inhibition of such free and frank expression of opinions
prejudice the effective conduct of public affairs?
(3) Why is this predicted prejudice so likely to occur that it is
necessary to withhold the information in the circumstances of the
particular case?
The guidance note also says that it should be considered if there is "any
factual information which could be made available" and notes that "Often
information of a background or factual nature can be separated from that
which contains expressions of opinion".
With the information available to me, it doesn't seem justified for this
information to have been withheld in full in this manner. The content of
previous reports have been almost entirely (if not entirely) factual in
nature, and I have not been given reason to expect this will not be the
case with the current draft reports once they are published.
I ask that you reconsider the release of the requested draft reports,
otherwise I intend to take this issue to the Office of the Ombudsman.
Ngā mihi,
Mark Hanna
==========
Kia ora,
Could you please let me know if you've received my last email, regarding
the withholding of the current draft TOR reports under s9(2)(g)(i) of the
OIA, and when I should expect a response? I'd appreciate it if I could
receive this by tomorrow at the latest, to help me decide whether or not I
should pursue this issue with the Office of the Ombudsman.
Ngā mihi,
Mark Hanna
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Please use this email address for all replies to this request:
[5][FYI request #6558 email]
Disclaimer: This message and any reply that you make will be published on
the internet. Our privacy and copyright policies:
[6]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
From: MCMAHON, Teresa
New Zealand Police
Dear Mr Hanna
I attach a further reply to one of your information requests.
Teresa McMahon, Ministerial Services
Police National Headquarters / New Zealand Police / Nga Pirihimana O
Aotearoa
180 Molesworth Street, PO Box 3017, Wellington 6140 [1]www.police.govt.nz
===============================================================
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
References
Visible links
1. http://www.police.govt.nz/
From: Mark Hanna
Tēnā koe,
Thank you for your response, stating that part 1a of my request is refused under section 18(d) as the information will be made publicly available soon.
In response to a complaint I laid about a separate request in which information was withheld under section 18(d) because it would be made publicly available soon, I received the following note from the Ombudsman (Case 448574):
"I would like to suggest that in future cases where section 18(d) is being considered for refusal, the following points are taken into account:
- Releasing the information to requestors as soon as reasonably practicable particularly where no harm or prejudice has been identified in the release of the information;
- Providing requestors with a specific date (or a date by which) it is expected that the information will be released; and
- Notifying requestors and providing a link to the information when it becomes known that release of the information is imminent."
If these draft reports have now completed the internal review and consultation process, then presumably no harm or prejudice has been identified in the release of the information. Is there any particular reason why they cannot be released to me now?
Ngā mihi,
Mark Hanna
From: MCMAHON, Teresa
New Zealand Police
Dear Mark
Thanks for your query below. Could you give me your phone number so one of our managers can call you to discuss?
If you want to ring me, initially, my DDI is 04 4749469.
Thanks
Teresa McMahon
show quoted sections
From: Mark Hanna
Kia ora Teresa,
I'd rather continue correspondence via email, if that's all right. A significant part of the reason why I prefer making my requests via FYI is the way it keeps requests open, and keeping correspondence in writing also helps with my own records.
Ngā mihi,
Mark Hanna
From: MCMAHON, Teresa
New Zealand Police
Dear Mark
Further to your response of 22 November, Police has noted your comment but believes that the refusal under s18(d) was an appropriate reply as the documents in question are to be publicly released at the end of November 2017. As you know, you do have the right to complain to the Ombudsman about the decision on your request.
Yours sincerely
Teresa McMahon, Ministerial Services
Police National Headquarters / New Zealand Police / Nga Pirihimana O Aotearoa
180 Molesworth Street, PO Box 3017, Wellington 6140 www.police.govt.nz
===============================================================
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
Mark Hanna left an annotation ()
The remaining information I had requested has now been published on the NZ Police website: http://www.police.govt.nz/about-us/publi...
I have added the following to my complaint to the Ombudsman:
==========
Tēnā koe,
I would like to add an additional point to my complaint number 467678, regarding the use of sections 9(2)(g)(i) and 18(d) of the OIA by NZ Police.
As I described in my initial complaint, the final decision from NZ Police was to refuse to release the requested information citing section 18(d) as it would be made publicly available soon:
“The draft TOR reports have now gone through an internal review and consultation process and will be publicly released on the New Zealand Police website on 30th November 2017. Therefore, your request for copies of the draft TOR reports is refused under section 18(d) of the Official Information Act 1982 in that the information requested is, or will soon be, publicly available.”
Though the 30th of November has now passed, and I have since found that the reports have been published on the New Zealand Police website, I received no such notification from NZ Police to tell me that the information had been published or where it could be found.
As I quoted in my initial complaint, and told NZ Police on 2017-11-27, I have earlier received a provision opinion from Chief Ombudsman Peter Boshier regarding section 18(d) of the OIA that laid out the following expectations (Case 448574):
“I would like to suggest that in future cases where section 18(d) is being considered for refusal, the following points are taken into account:
- Releasing the information to requestors as soon as reasonably practicable particularly where no harm or prejudice has been identified in the release of the information;
- Providing requestors with a specific date (or a date by which) it is expected that the information will be released; and
- Notifying requestors and providing a link to the information when it becomes known that release of the information is imminent.”
Though I was provided with a specific date on which it was expected the information would be released, I received no notification or link from NZ Police when it became known that release of the information was imminent, or after it had been released.
Ngā mihi,
Mark Hanna
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 requestAct on what you've learnt
Similar requests
When is the annual TOR report covering 2018 due to be published?
To New Zealand Police by Mark Hanna
Mark Hanna left an annotation ()
I have laid the following complaint with the Office of the Ombudsman:
Tēnā koe,
I would like to lodge a formal complaint regarding a decision made on a request for official information.
In this case, the requested information is due to be publicly released on 2017-11-30, so I am not expecting that this complaint will lead to its early release. Rather, I am concerned that the actions of NZ Police have unnecessarily and inappropriately delayed the release of this information. I hope that, as a result of my complaint, similar cases in the future might be prevented.
On 2017-09-16, I sent a request for official information to the NZ Police asking for various pieces of information. One of these was as follows:
“1a. Copies of any current drafts of TOR report(s).”
TOR refers to “Tactical Options Reporting”, regarding use of force by NZ Police. Previously, NZ Police have released these research reports on a biannual basis. However, the last report was released in July 2015, and no further TOR reports have been published in the intervening two and a half years due to a technical fault that had been fixed by 2016-12-14.
When I received a decision on 2017-10-25, this information was withheld, citing section 9(2)(g)(i) of the Official Information Act:
“The draft reports have not been approved and are currently going through the internal review, consultation, and sign-off process. It is planned to make the finalised report publicly available by the end of the year. Therefore, the information requested has been withheld under section 9(2)(g)(i) of the Official Information Act 1982. This section of the Act applies in order to maintain the effective conduct of public affairs through the free and frank expression of opinions by or between members of an organisation of officers and employees of any Department or organisation in the course of their duty.”
I did not consider that this part of the decision was justified, and wrote back to NZ Police to clarify this point on 2017-10-31:
“Kia ora,
I am unclear as to why the draft reports I requested in part 1a of my request have been withheld under s9(2)(g)(i) of the OIA. Could you please confirm that the following questions, taken from the Ombudsman’s guidance note on this section of the OIA (http://www.ombudsman.parliament.nz/syste...), have been considered?
(1) How would disclosure of the information at issue inhibit the free and frank expression of opinions in future?
(2) How would the inhibition of such free and frank expressions of opinions prejudice the effective conduct of public affairs?
(3) Why is this predicted prejudice so likely to occur that it is necessary to withhold the information in the circumstances of the particular case?
The guidance note also says that it should be considered if there is “any factual information which could be made available” and notes that “Often information of a background or factual nature can be separated from that which contains expressions of opinion”.
With the information available to me, it doesn’t seem justified for this information to have been withheld in full in this manner. The content of previous reports have been almost entirely (if not entirely) factual in nature, and I have not been given reason to expect this will not be the case with the current draft reports once they are published.
I ask that you reconsider the release of the requested draft reports, otherwise I intend to take this issue to the Office of the Ombudsman.
Ngā mihi,
Mark Hanna”
I received a further response from NZ Police on 2017-11-27 (there was some delay as the person originally working on my request left the employment of NZ Police during this time). In the new decision, my previous concerns were not addressed but I was instead told that this part of my request was now refused under section 18(d) of the Official Information Act:
“The information requested was withheld under section 9(2)(g)(i) of the Official Information Act 1982. This section of the Act applies in order to maintain the effective conduct of public affairs through the free and frank expression of opinions by or between members of an organisation of officers and employees of any department or organisation in the course of their duty.
You further emailed Police on 31 October 2017 requesting that we reconsider the release of the draft reports.
The draft TOR reports have now gone through an internal review and consultation process and will be publicly released on the New Zealand Police website on 30th November 2017. Therefore, your request for copies of the draft TOR reports is refused under section 18(d) of the Official Information Act 1982 in that the information requested is, or will soon be, publicly available.”
I sent a further response on that same day, regarding a provisional opinion of section 18(d) sent to me regarding a previous complaint (Case 448574):
“Tēnā koe,
Thank you for your response, stating that part 1a of my request is refused under section 18(d) as the information will be made publicly available soon.
In response to a complaint I laid about a separate request in which information was withheld under section 18(d) because it would be made publicly available soon, I received the following note from the Ombudsman (Case 448574):
“I would like to suggest that in future cases where section 18(d) is being considered for refusal, the following points are taken into account:
- Releasing the information to requestors as soon as reasonably practicable particularly where no harm or prejudice has been identified in the release of the information;
- Providing requestors with a specific date (or a date by which) it is expected that the information will be released; and
- Notifying requestors and providing a link to the information when it becomes known that release of the information is imminent.”
If these draft reports have now completed the internal review and consultation process, then presumably no harm or prejudice has been identified in the release of the information. Is there any particular reason why they cannot be released to me now?
Ngā mihi,
Mark Hanna”
Finally, on 2017-11-24, I received a response from NZ Police stating that:
“Dear Mark
Further to your response of 22 November, Police has noted your comment but believes that refusal under s18(d) was an appropriate reply as the documents in question are to be publicly released at the end of November 2017. As you know, you do have the right to complain to the Ombudsman about the decision on your request.”
As I laid out in the correspondence quoted above, I do not believe that either the initial decision to withhold the draft reports under section 9(2)(g)(i), or the later decision to refuse this part of my request under section 18(d), were justified.
No satisfactory reason was given to me at any point as to why section 9(2)(g)(i) might apply to a draft of a statistical report, or why it would be necessary to withhold this information in order to maintain the effective conduct of public affairs through the free and frank expression of opinions. I do not believe this decision was justified or appropriate.
I also do not believe it would have been at all difficult for NZ Police to release an electronic copy of the report prior to it being published on their website, given that it had already completed their internal review process by the time that decision was made. Section 18(d) allows that information may be withheld if it will soon be publicly available, but not that it must be withheld.
Given the apparent lack of any barriers to NZ Police releasing this information, I believe the decision is clearly counter to the spirit of the principle of availability, in that “information shall be made available unless there is good reason for withholding it”. Whether this was intentional or not, I am concerned that if similar decisions are made in the future it will be detrimental to government transparency and against the public interest.
I have attached a zip file containing all correspondence I have had with the NZ Police regarding this request. Please don’t hesitate to contact me if any part of my complaint is unclear, or if you require any more information from me.
Ngā mihi,
Mark Hanna
Link to this