Privacy Commissioner, HRRT GATEKEEPER

The OPC website states:

Taking your case to the Human Rights Review Tribunal

The Tribunal is an independent judicial body that is separate from our office. They look at each case on its own merits and don’t take any earlier legal opinions, including ours, into account.

You can only take your case to the Tribunal after we’ve:

1. Notified the agency of your complaint
2. Investigated or notified the parties that we will attempt to settle your complaint
3. Closed your complaint
4. Given you a Section 98 notice and a certificate.

The Privacy Act 2020 enables anyone whose privacy complaint has been investigated by the Office of the Privacy Commissioner to file a claim in the Human Rights Review Tribunal, including complaints investigated under the Privacy Act 1993. For more information about the requirements and time limits for filing a claim in the Tribunal, see our guidance document here

https://www.privacy.org.nz/publications/guidance-resources/filing-a-claim-in-the-human-rights-review-tribunal

The issue with the OPC issuing a certificate is that without this certificate ALL rights to escalate the complaint to the HRRT is obstructed as seen in multiple complaints filed by Ponsonby Chambers with the following decisions:

[2023] NZHRRT 34

[23] As the Commissioner’s decision not to investigate Ms Dunstan’s complaint was made under s 74 (and was not made under s77(2)), she cannot commence proceedings in this Tribunal under s 98(1)(a) of the Act nor under any of the other subsections in
s 98(1)(b) -(i).
CONCLUSION
[24] The Tribunal has no jurisdiction in respect of the intended claim filed by Ms Dunstan, therefore the statement of claim presented for filing on 19 April 2023 cannot be accepted by the Secretary.
………………………………………
Sarah Eyre
Chairperson
Human Rights Review Tribunal

https://www.justice.govt.nz/assets/Documents/Decisions/NZHRRT-34-Tanya-Dunstan-Rejection-of-Statement-of-Claim.pdf

[2024] NZHRRT 16

[23] If there had been any investigation conducted by the Commissioner into Ms Dunstan’s allegations against MOJ, she would have been issued with a Certificate of Investigation stating this. Ms Dunstan has not supplied any Certificate of Investigation, either with her original statement of claims or with her subsequent memoranda. There is, no evidence of any investigation and so no evidence that the Tribunal has any jurisdiction to hear this claim under section 98(1)(e).
CONCLUSION
[24] There is no evidence that the Commissioner has (without conducting an investigation) attempted to secure a settlement as required for jurisdiction under section 98(1)(a). There is no evidence that the Commissioner has investigated any of the
complaints giving rise to these intended proceedings as required under sections 98(1)(d) or (e). There is therefore, no evidence that the five intended claims filed by Ms Dunstan meet the criteria in section 98 for the Tribunal to have jurisdiction.

[25] The Tribunal has no jurisdiction in respect of the intended claims filed by Ms Dunstan against Oranga Tamariki, Corrections, the Police, MOJ, and the Psychology Group on 15 and 16 August 2023; therefore, the statements of claims cannot be accepted for filing by the Secretary.
“Ms SJ Eyre”
………………………………………….
Ms SJ Eyre
Chairperson
Human Rights Review Tribunal

UNFORTUNATELY, The HRRT is bound by legislation: Human Rights Review Tribunal Regulations 2002

and in s21(2) it states: 21 Tribunal’s decision

(2) Each copy of the decision must contain, or have attached to it, a statement informing the parties of the right to appeal to the High Court and the procedure for exercising that right.

As such, as neither of these decisions [one of which is a 5 case mass dismissal] contained any appeal information NEITHER are lawful and both amount to Human Rights Violations under s27, s14 and s19 NZBORA 1990. *Matters the High Court will now be burdened to address in line with the precedent decision of, as per the precedent decision of:

[2022] NZHC 3389 Deliu v Auckland Court and Attorney General  issued 13 December:

“I make a declaration that, by taking 19 months to make a decision on the request in Mr Deliu’s 19 July 2020 memorandum, the District Court breached Mr Deliu’s right to natural justice in s 27 of the BORA.”

The Privacy Act 2020 appears to have deliberate flaw, such as Part 7 indicates inaccurate records “should” be considered- but there is no requirement for falsified reports to ACTUALLY BE CORRECTED BY ANY AGENCY TO BE FACTUAL.

Also, privacy breaches can be escalated to the High Courts for remedy, as seen in the following cases:

CIV-2022-404-001235
[2023] NZHC 309

[28] The types of damages that are recoverable in tort are generally only those that are a reasonably foreseeable consequence of the wrong. There comes a point when the flow-on effects of a wrong become too remote from the wrong to be
compensatable. The complexities of the serious issues Ms Christison has faced, and continues to have to deal with, are such that a calculation of damages, assuming the tort she asserts existed, would not be a matter for summary judgment.
[29] I am conscious that this outcome will be very disappointing for Ms Christison. As I have said, the Court appreciates that she has been through a lot and more than once she said she wanted to have this matter dealt with.
[30] Ms Jackson submitted the proper venue for Ms Christison to obtain a remedy for the wrongs OT accepts, is the Human Rights Review Tribunal. Ms Jackson responsibly submitted that OT would not oppose an application under s 98(8) of the Privacy Act that time for bringing such a claim be extended. If, as Ms Christison advises, she intended early on in the piece to go to the Tribunal but lost that opportunity because she was let down by her then solicitors, I would expect an application for extension of time on those grounds may well be favourably considered, particularly in the absence of opposition.

https://www.capitalletter.co.nz/sites/default/files/decisions/2023/02/27/civ-2022-404-1235_27.02.23_judg.pdf

*Unfortunately for the Courts, Associate Judge Lester is only an “associate Judge” with limited jurisdiction who can not make decisions on summary judgments without consent of both parties. [His reasoning to refuse justice due to novel grounds are also flawed as seen in the Tort in Hosking v Runting: Gault P and Blanchard J said:

‘I see no reason why our courts should not develop the action for breach of confidence to protect personal privacy through the public disclosure of private information where it is warranted”

An excellent resource from the Australian courts:

Exhaustive Efforts of Ponsonby Chambers founder, to secure privacy certificates for the regulation of several agencies include:

1. C/318939- OT certificate issued for privacy breach [out of time- ignored and not acted on]
2. ENQ/142774 Manukau court (providing a confidential address to an abuser)
3. ENQ/143037 School (medical records, school policy regarding chicken pox “not being an acceptable excuse to miss school”)
4. ENQ143028 NZ Police (NIA file withheld)
5. ENQ144898 “courts winz, OT- supporting information for privacy breach complaints)
6. ENQ/147354 Manukau Court (sending confidential documents to an address in Auckland Wakefield st)
7. ENQ/147956 Corrections (concealing records)
8. ENQ/148026 NZ Police (concealing EVIS and false records of EVI NIA file)
9. ENQ/148404 Auckland High Court (Obvious privacy breach- affirmative defence- stayed NO certificate meaning HRRT obstructed)
10. ENQ/149387 Corrections- as per ENQ/147956 now with PROOF they have withheld a warrant from me and continue to conceal records.
11. NO REFREENCE NZ Police Duplicate entry of ENQ/148026?
12. NO REFREENCE Oranga Tamariki privacy breach part 7 false records.
13. ENQ/149735 NZ Psychology Board- false records privacy act part 7.
14. ENQ/150038 Denam Bramwell- breach taking confidential court documents
15. ENQ/150058 Oranga Tamariki breach of privacy withholding info and inaccurate records
16. ENQ/150190 Oranga Tamariki – access to information for safety (specifics of others to be redacted)
17. ENQ/150277 NZ Police – concealing police prosecutors name OMBUDSMAN HAS NO POWER TO ADDRESS POLICE PRIVACY BREACHES OR CONDUCT.
18. ENQ/150326 MSD CONCEALMENT OF PERSONAL INFORMATION ONGOING
19. C/32623 Oranga Tamariki- privacy breach disclosing identity in a ROC waiting for an investigator???
20. ENQ/150686 Psychology Group interfering with my private medical records, concealing them, then falsifying records with a social worker and Kirsten Davis.
21. ENQ/151365 Manukau Court unrelated address in Henderson on court documents exposing surveillance in breach of privacy
22. ENQ151527 NZ Police defamation and fabrication of false records- part 7 privacy act 2020
23. ENQ/151747 Paul Keegan withholding information obstructing LCRO hearing.
24. NO REFREENCE NZ Police referred to OMBUDSMAN, WHO HAS NO POWER TO ADDRESS POLICE PRIVACY BREACHES OR CONDUCT.
25. ENQ/151960 Courts and minister- false records part 7 2020, misleading the public courts are separate to MOJ- requiring clarification of all MOJ websites and documents.
26. ENQ/152199 The psychology group and Oranga Tamariki concealing psychology reports from the CYRUS file, court psychologist and courts.
27. ENQ/153180 HRC concealing files exceeding 20 days without request for extension.
28. ENQ/153334 HRC concealing form 14s obstructing HRRT proceedings
29. NO REFREENCE Kids Social Services concealing evidence of child abuse and falsifying records.
30. NO REFREENCE St Johns Ambulance Falsifying Records
31. NO REFREENCE SWRB for concealing their records of the threshold to hold a disciplinary tribunal and update the OIA request sent to them reporting 4 social workers misconduct on 6 March 2024 (3 months ago without any response beyond automated replies)
32. NO REFREENCE Life Plus for Oranga Tamariki interference with a supervisor.