iSAYSO
The lawfulness of Police conduct, the authority under which powers were exercised, IPCA
FORMAL REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION
Complaint Reference: 26-31317
To: C McDonell, Manager: Resolutions (IPCA)
Dated today
March 26th 2026
1. Introduction
I refer to your correspondence dated 26 March 2026 advising that the complaint has been closed on the basis that the matters raised are more appropriately addressed within Court proceedings.
With respect, that position does not engage with the substance of the complaint and reflects an unduly narrow characterisation of the issues raised.
2. Nature of the Claim
For clarity, this complaint is not directed toward:
– The determination of criminal liability; nor
– The admissibility of evidence in any prosecution
Rather, it concerns:
The lawfulness of Police conduct, the authority under which powers were exercised, and whether those powers were exercised in accordance with proper process and for a lawful purpose.
These are matters falling squarely within the Authority’s statutory oversight function under the Independent Police Conduct Authority Act 1988.
3. Official Information Disclosures – Evidential Inconsistency
Since the Authority’s decision, Police have disclosed further material under the Official Information Act 1982 to the affected parties, Mr Mills and Ms Maas.
That material has been provided over the course of the past several weeks.
When read as a whole, the disclosed record is not internally consistent.
The Authority is requested to:
– Obtain and review the full body of OIA disclosures provided to Mr Mills and Ms Maas over the relevant period; and
– Assess those disclosures collectively, rather than in isolation
It will be apparent upon review that:
– The basis of authority asserted by Police is not consistently maintained
– The stated purpose of Police involvement is not stable across accounts
– The procedural record is incomplete and lacks contemporaneous support
4. Legal Framework
(a) New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990
Section 21: Protection against unreasonable search or seizure
(b) Policing Act 2008
Requirement that Police act within lawful authority, with integrity and independence, and for proper policing purposes
(c) Established Public Law Principles
Powers must be exercised for a proper purpose and decision-making must be documented and capable of scrutiny
5. Issues Requiring Investigation
5.1 Lawful Authority
Whether Police had any valid statutory basis for the actions undertaken, and if so, why that basis is not consistently articulated.
5.2 Proper Purpose
Whether Police involvement extended into matters that are, in substance, civil or administrative in nature.
5.3 Due Process and Record-Keeping
Whether the absence of contemporaneous records and inconsistency of accounts reflects a failure of procedural standards.
5.4 Reliability of Official Accounts
Whether inconsistencies undermine the credibility of the Police account.
6. Procedural Integrity of the Authority’s Decision
The Authority’s decision appears to have been made without engagement with the full evidential record now available.
A decision to defer the matter to the Courts risks failing to discharge the Authority’s statutory oversight role.
7. Distinction from Court Proceedings
A Court determines admissibility and liability.
It does not independently examine Police conduct as a matter of accountability.
These matters fall to the Authority.
8. Request
I formally request that the Authority:
1. Reconsider its decision
2. Obtain and review the complete OIA disclosures
3. Assess inconsistencies within that material
4. Determine whether a formal investigation is required
9. Conclusion
These matters concern the lawful limits of Police power, the integrity of process, and the reliability of official accounts.
They warrant independent scrutiny and cannot be resolved by procedural deferral alone.
Signed:
_____________________________
Tracy lynch