COMPLAINT UNDER THE OFFICIAL INFORMATION ACT 1982 MINISTRY OF JUSTICE — OIA 135141

 

 

I request an investigation into the Ministry of Justice’s handling of my Official Information Act request concerning crime statistics and citizenship, nationality, country of birth, visa and immigration status.

 

I attach the Ministry’s response dated 18 September 2026, reference OIA 135141.

 

The response has clarified the Ministry’s position but has also disclosed matters that I believe warrant review.

 

1. Country-of-birth information exists

 

The Ministry confirms that a country-of-birth field exists in its criminal case-management system and that the information is supplied by New Zealand Police, although inconsistently.

 

The Ministry then states that because this information is considered unreliable and the Ministry does not report criminal offending data by country of birth, the information “is thus not held by the Ministry.”

 

I ask the Ombudsman to review whether information contained within an existing Ministry data field can properly be treated as not held merely because the Ministry does not routinely report that information.

 

2. Scope of searches undertaken

 

The Ministry states that, in responding to my request, it reviewed “all the reportable data fields in the criminal case management system.”

 

That appears materially narrower than searching all information actually held by the Ministry that fell within the request.

 

The Ministry separately acknowledges that hard-copy court files may contain information concerning citizenship, nationality, country of birth, visa or immigration status.

 

I appreciate the distinction the Ministry draws between Ministry information and court information. However, I ask that the adequacy and scope of the searches actually undertaken before the original refusal be reviewed.

 

3. No consultation with other agencies

 

The Ministry expressly confirms that it did not consult Immigration New Zealand, New Zealand Police or the Department of Corrections before responding to the portions of the request concerning prosecution and sentencing statistics broken down by citizenship, nationality, country of birth, visa or immigration status.

 

I ask the Ombudsman to consider whether that was adequate before the Ministry relied upon the relevant “not held” ground.

 

4. Immigration New Zealand and transfer

 

Most importantly, the Ministry now acknowledges:

 

“Your questions about whether Immigration New Zealand was notified, whether deportation liability was considered, whether a deportation liability notice was issued, whether a person was deported, and why deportation was declined or not pursued, do relate more closely to Immigration New Zealand’s statutory and operational functions.”

 

Despite that conclusion, those portions of my request were not transferred to Immigration New Zealand.

 

I ask the Ombudsman to review whether those portions should have been transferred under s 14 of the Official Information Act.

 

5. Absence of policies, definitions and auditing

 

The Ministry further states that:

 

* it has no policy concerning the recording of citizenship, nationality, country of birth, visa status or immigration status;

* it has no relevant data definitions; and

* it has identified no audit or review concerning incomplete or inconsistent recording of this information.

 

At the same time, it confirms that a country-of-birth field exists and is populated with information supplied by Police, albeit inconsistently.

 

I ask that these matters be considered when assessing whether the Ministry undertook reasonable searches and whether its refusal grounds were properly applied.

 

Outcome sought

 

I ask the Ombudsman to investigate:

 

1. whether the Ministry’s original refusal was justified;

2. whether reasonable and sufficiently comprehensive searches were undertaken;

3. whether existing country-of-birth information is information “held” for OIA purposes notwithstanding that the Ministry does not routinely report it;

4. whether the relevant portions of the request should have been transferred to Immigration New Zealand;

5. whether further information should now be provided; and

6. whether the Ministry should reconsider its response following the investigation.

 

Please treat the Ministry’s letter dated 18 September 2026, OIA 135141, as the principal supporting document for this complaint.

 

Kind regards,

 

Tracy Lynch

isayso.net

NOT A LAWYER