• Privacy Commissioner
“Whaika te Whakapono”
Seek for the Truth – Follow the Truth
________________________________________________________________________________
Page: 1 2
.
Correspondence on this page follows a referral by the Ombudsman regarding my attempt to obtain a copy of the police department’s “independent” inquiry and report . . .
.
.
● Acknowledgement from the Privacy Commissioner:
.
13 June 2013
Patrick O’Brien
patrick_john_obrien @hotmail.com
Dear Mr O’Brien
Reference: C/25447
We acknowledge receipt of your correspondence dated 13 May 2013 which has been transferred to us by the Office of the Ombudsman [EDIT ~ see here].
Your correspondence is being reviewed and you can expect to receive a reply from us within the next four weeks, though we will endeavour to get back to you sooner if we can.
Please find enclosed an information sheet detailing our complaints investigation process, which you may find useful.
Your complaint is being dealt with in our Auckland office. If you have any queries about the status of your complaint, please call (09) 302 8680 and press 3. Please also have available the Reference Number C/25447.
Yours sincerely
Penny Simpson
Secretary (Investigations)
.
link: original letter from Privacy Commissioner in PDF format
.
.
● Letter from the Privacy Commissioner:
.
20 June 2013
Patrick O’Brien
patrick_john_obrien@hotmail.com
Dear Mr O’Brien
Privacy Act Complaint: Patrick O’Brien and New Zealand Police (Our Ref: C/25447)
The Office of the Ombudsmen has transferred to us a complaint you made to it against Police.
I understand your complaint is that on 30 November 2012 you made a request to Police for a copy of a report by Bruce Squire QC. This report was created following Mr Squire’s independent investigation into allegations that you had made that you had committed perjury during your time as an under-cover police officer. You received a response from Detective Inspector Bruce Scott of Waitemata Police dated 14 March 2013, refusing your request pursuant to section 9(2)(h) of the Official Information Act 1982.
You complained to the Office of the Ombudsmen about this refusal, and the complaint was transferred to our office on the basis that it is likely to relate to a possible interference with privacy, which should be considered under the Privacy Act.
Specifically, your complaint raises issues under principle 6 of the Privacy Act. I enclose a copy of this principle for your information.
New Zealand Police has been told of your complaint and asked to provide comments to us as soon as possible. Once we receive a response, we will be in a better position to assess your complaint. We will then be in contact with you to discuss your complaint further.
Yours sincerely
Emma Pond
Senior Investigating Officer (Auckland)
Encl: Principle
.
link: original letter from Privacy Commissioner in PDF format
.
.
● Finding of the Privacy Commissioner:
.
7 August 2013
Patrick O’Brien
patrick_john_obrien@hotmail.com
Dear Mr O’Brien
Privacy Act Complaint: Patrick O’Brien and New Zealand Police (Our Ref: C/25447)
I refer to previous correspondence concerning the Privacy Act complaint you made against Police.
On 30 November 2012 you made a request to Police for a copy of a report by Bruce Squire QC. This report was created following Mr Squire’s independent investigation into allegations that you had made that you had committed perjury during your time as an undercover Police officer.
Police responded to your request on 14 March 2013 and refused it pursuant to section 9(2)(h) of the Official Information Act 1982.
You complained to the Office of the Ombudsman about this refusal, and it transferred the complaint to our office on the basis that it was likely to relate to a possible interference with privacy which should be considered under the Privacy Act.
As set out in our letter of 20 June 2013 to you, under principle 6 you have a right to access personal information held about you by Police. However this is not an absolute right, and Police can refuse to provide you this information if they have a proper basis under sections 27-29 of the Privacy Act.
We notified your complaint to Police and it has provided us with a copy of Mr Squire’s report. It has advised that it seeks to withhold this report under section 29(1)(f) of the Privacy Act on the basis that disclosure of the report would breach legal professional privilege. Legal professional privilege in this case is solicitor-client privilege, which exists to protect the confidentiality between lawyers and their clients, to enable the client to be open and honest with their lawyer, and so that in return the lawyer can give them free and frank advice.
Having considered the Police’s submissions and read the withheld report, I am satisfied that it falls into the category of solicitor client privilege and releasing it to you would breach this legal professional privilege. I am therefore satisfied that it can be withheld under section 29(1)(f) of the Privacy Act.
Accordingly it is my view that Police’s decision to refuse to give you Mr Squire’s report was not in breach of principle 6, and did not interfere with your privacy.
This is my preliminary view. If you would like to comment on this view please do so by 30 August 2013. Please note that if we have not heard from you by then we will presume that you do not wish to pursue the matter, and we will close our file on that basis.
Yours sincerely
Emma Pond
Senior Investigating Officer (Auckland)
.
link: original letter from the Privacy Commissioner in PDF format
.
.
● My letter of response to the Privacy Commissioner:
.
5 November 2013
Emma Pond
Senior Investigating Officer
Office of Privacy Commissioner
PO Box 466
Auckland 1140
Dear Ms Pond
Your reference: C/25447
Thank you for your letter of 7 August (above).
Please accept my apologies for the delay in meeting your 30 August deadline to close my file but I’ve been seeking legal advice on your ruling to refuse my request for information and I have only recently received this advice.
Please be advised that . . . I wish to have the Privacy Commission’s decision to decline my request on the grounds of legal professional privilege to be re-opened and reviewed by the Ombudsman and this review shall follow the receipt of Submissions to be provided in this regard.
The person authorised by me to act on my behalf in this matter is Rosemary Purchas. You will formally hear from her with her detailed legal Submissions regarding this review to the Ombudsman soon after 5 November 2013.
I ask that all further communications between the Privacy Commissioner and myself be sent to the following two email addresses:
Primary email address: rosie.purchas@gmail.com
Copied to: patrick_john_obrien@hotmail.com
Please acknowledge receipt of this letter to both myself and Rosemary Purchas to confirm your agreement to re-open my case in preparation for review by the Ombudsman.
Thank you
Yours sincerely
Patrick O’Brien
Cc: Rosemary Purchas
.
link: my original digitally signed letter in PDF format is here
.
.
The Privacy Commissioner refuses to re-open my file . . .
.
● Email from Emma Pond, Office of Privacy Commissioner:
Email Headers — here
From: Emma Pond
To: Patrick O’Brien
Cc: Rosemary Purchas
Date: 7 November 2013
Subject: Privacy Act Complaint – NZ Police – our REF 25447
Dear Mr O’Brien
Thank you for your emails of 5 and 6 November.
You have asked us to reopen our investigation of your complaint, which we closed on 2 September 2013, so that the Office of the Ombudsmen can review our view that the requested information could be withheld by Police under the Privacy Act.
As an initial point, I note that we formed a preliminary view on your complaint, set out in our letter of 7 August, and invited you to comment. We told you in that letter that if we did not hear from you by 30 August we would presume that you did not wish to pursue the matter, and we would close our file on that basis. We did not hear from you, and so we closed our file on the basis that we presumed that you did not wish to pursue the matter. However it appears that you do now wish to pursue the matter.
I have considered your request, but we will not be reopening our investigation of your complaint. We have already investigated your complaint, formed a preliminary view on it, and given you the opportunity to comment on that view. You did not respond to us within the specified timeframe, neither did you contact us to ask for an extension of time (which we would likely have given). I consider that our subsequent decision to discontinue our investigation was a fair and reasonable one.
Further, the Office of the Ombudsmen does not have jurisdiction to consider whether our legal view on your complaint is correct. It can only look at whether the process we followed during our investigation was fair and reasonable. If you think that our process was not fair or reasonable, then you can complain to the Office of the Ombudsmen about this, but we do not need to reopen our investigation for you to do so. You just need to contact the Office of the Ombudsmen and discuss the matter with it.
However if you want to challenge our legal view on your complaint (namely that the Police could refuse to provide you with the requested information on the basis that it was subject to legal professional privilege) then you need to take a case to the Human Rights Review Tribunal. It will look at the withheld information, and listen to submissions from you and the Police, and make a binding decision as to whether or not you are entitled to access that information. If you think you might want to take a case to the Tribunal then you may like to seek some legal advice before doing so.
If you do decide to take a case to the Tribunal then you will need to show it that we have investigated your complaint. I have attached a Certificate of Investigation to this email, which you would need to provide to the Tribunal if you file a claim with it. The Tribunal can be contacted at the Tribunals Unit, Private Bag 32001, Featherston St, Wellington 6146.
Yours sincerely
Emma Pond
Senior Investigating Officer
Attached: Certificate of Investigation
.
.
My related commentary . . .
.
▪ Secret Inquiry:
August 07, 2013 — “It’s official, New Zealand police will not release the findings
from their “independent” inquiry into my perjury and evidence tampering.”
http://disidento.wordpress.com/2013/08/07/secret-inquiry/
.
.
________________________________________________________________________________
O'Brien . . . My Long Road Back 
Pages: 1 2