iSAYSO
Police now refusing OIA requests — and monitoring my Facebook posts?
Police now refusing OIA requests — and monitoring my Facebook posts?
BY NIGEL GRAY 16 JUNE 2026
PLEASE SHARE
Over the past few months I’ve been asking Police a series of Official Information Act questions about the new roadside oral‑fluid drug testing regime. These were structured, factual questions about legal authority, safety, accuracy, training, and rights.
Today I received a response that surprised me — not because they refused the request, but how they refused it.
Police have now refused my OIA under section 18(h) “vexatious”, and the reasoning they provided raises some serious questions about transparency and process.
Here are some excerpts from their letter:
1. Police say they are monitoring my Facebook posts
“Police have become aware of your public social media posts…”
They then go on to list what they believe my posts say — without identifying which posts they are referring to.
I’ve made many posts on many topics.
Police did not specify:
Police did not specify:
Yet these unspecified posts were used to justify refusing my OIA.
2. Police formed a judgement about my “position”
“This indicates that you hold a fixed position… and are not requesting information for any purposeful or legitimate reasons.”
This is unusual.
The OIA is supposed to assess the request, not the requester’s beliefs.
The OIA is supposed to assess the request, not the requester’s beliefs.
3. Police say that disagreeing with their answers is “vexatious”
“You are not happy with Police’s responses…
You then choose to repeat your original requests…
You indicated a willingness to complain to the Ombudsman.”
You then choose to repeat your original requests…
You indicated a willingness to complain to the Ombudsman.”
Disagreeing with an agency’s answer — or being willing to complain to the Ombudsman — is not a lawful basis for refusing an OIA.
4. Police claim I “already have access” to the information
Even though the 11 questions I asked were new, specific, and had never been answered before.
5. Police replaced the previous OIA officer
This response was written by a new person — Inspector Peter McKennie — rather than the officer who handled all previous correspondence.
Why the sudden change?
Why the sudden shift in tone?
Why the sudden shift in tone?
6. I have lodged a formal Ombudsman complaint
Given the tone and reasoning in the refusal, I have now lodged a complaint with the Office of the Ombudsman. They have acknowledged receipt and will allocate a reference number shortly.
This is now a matter for independent review.
7. My questions remain unanswered
All I asked for were:
These are basic public‑interest questions about a new policing power.
8. Final thought
When an agency begins:
…it raises questions that go beyond the original topic.
I’ll update once the Ombudsman has reviewed the matter.