Details of Operational UAV/Drone Use
Suzette Dawson made this Official Information request to New Zealand Police
The request was successful.
From: Suzette Dawson
Dear New Zealand Police,
Freedom of Information Act request:
It has recently been reported by TV3 that the NZ Police have confirmed the use of drones in 2 police operations. (Ref. http://www.3news.co.nz/Police-confirm-sp... "Police have already used drones twice during recent investigations"
Could you please confirm:
1. the nature of the operational use, specifically the type of suspected offences (e.g. drugs, or otherwise) involved in the investigations
2. the outcome of the use of the drones (e.g. whether it resulted in actionable intelligence/charges being laid/etc)
3. whether any sub-contracting or outsourced company or organisation was involved in controlling the drones or whether they were controlled directly by NZ Police staff
Yours faithfully,
Suzette Dawson
Please note: I am a natural NZ citizen, residing in Auckland, New Zealand.
New Zealand Police
Dear Suzette,
Thank you for your email about Operational UAV/Drone Use, which we have
forwarded for follow-up.
Sincerely
Public Affairs Team
NB
-----Suzette Dawson <[OIA #714 email]> wrote:
-----
To: OIA requests at New Zealand Police <[New Zealand Police request email]>
From: Suzette Dawson <[OIA #714 email]>
Date: 24/12/2012 11:11AM
Subject: Official Information Act request - Details of Operational
UAV/Drone Use
Dear New Zealand Police,
Freedom of Information Act request:
It has recently been reported by TV3 that the NZ Police have
confirmed the use of drones in 2 police operations. (Ref.
[1]http://www.3news.co.nz/Police-confirm-sp...
"Police have already used drones twice during recent
investigations"
Could you please confirm:
1. the nature of the operational use, specifically the type of
suspected offences (e.g. drugs, or otherwise) involved in the
investigations
2. the outcome of the use of the drones (e.g. whether it resulted
in actionable intelligence/charges being laid/etc)
3. whether any sub-contracting or outsourced company or
organisation was involved in controlling the drones or whether they
were controlled directly by NZ Police staff
Yours faithfully,
Suzette Dawson
Please note: I am a natural NZ citizen, residing in Auckland, New
Zealand.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Please use this email address for all replies to this request:
[OIA #714 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:
[2]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:
[3]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.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
===============================================================
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.3news.co.nz/Police-confirm-sp...
2. http://fyi.org.nz/help/contact
3. http://fyi.org.nz/help/officers
hide quoted sections
From: SMITH, Jason
New Zealand Police
Dear Ms Dawson
Please find attached the New Zealand Police response to your Official
Information Act request.
Yours sincerely
Jason Smith
Ministerial Services
New Zealand Police - Nga Pirihimana O Aotearoa
===============================================================
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
Joshua Grainger left an annotation ()
The fact that a matter is before the courts is not a reason to withhold under the OIA. Rather it must be shown that the release of the information would:
1: likely "prejudice the maintenance of the law, including the prevention, investigation, and detection of offences, and the right to a fair trial"
2: constitute contempt of court
I imagine that (1) deals mainly with classes of information, where the release of information could allow offenders to avoid investigation, or alert offenders that they are being prevented. Given it is said the issue is that it is before the courts, rather than release of information would prejudice justice, I imagine this could not be used. That leaves 2; which only applies if there are certain orders in place, such as suppression orders.
The Police should ideally identify which section they are withholding under, and then justify why they felt that they should withhold under that section.
Alex Harris left an annotation ()
Check the Ombudsman's guidelines - prejudice to the fair trial rights of the accused are prejudice to maintenance of the law, and so covered under s6(c). However, the police erred in not indicating that this was the legal withholding ground.
Luke C left an annotation ()
I agree with Alex.
Theoretically one could re-request the information after the judge has issued his decision, and after knowing that legal counsel would not intending on appealing the decision to a higher court.
A reason was provided for withholding the information in accordance with subpara. 19(a)(1), however it is customary to state the withholding provision that one is relying on.
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
Aviation Safety and RPAS (Remotely Piloted Aircraft Systems – ‘drones’)
To Civil Aviation Authority of New Zealand by Allen Reynolds
Aviation Safety and RPAS (Remotely Piloted Aircraft Systems – ‘drones’) – Whenuapai Control Zone
To Airways Corporation of New Zealand Limited by Allen Reynolds
Aviation Safety and RPAS/Drones – Update 2
To Civil Aviation Authority of New Zealand by Allen Reynolds
Kham left an annotation ()
We know what they own.
http://www.indymedia.org.nz/articles/616
http://www.hawkeyeuav.com/
Link to this