Police were asked to assist in the deportation of an illegal immigrant. A police officer telephoned the school attended by this man's children and asked the school for the children's residential address. The officer said Police had some stolen property which had to be returned to the children. A short time later, the man was arrested and deported.

A Member of Parliament complained to me that the police had collected information by unfair means.

Police said they asked for the children's address to ensure that once their father had been arrested and deported, they could be located and advised of the situation. Police used the pretext of returning stolen property because they did not want it known that the man was shortly to be arrested, as it may have prompted him to go into hiding.

The school was concerned about disclosing the address but felt pressured to do so because the request had come from Police. I noted that it is widely believed that the police have considerable information gathering powers, which may make people feel obliged to divulge information to the police, even if they would not ordinarily disclose it. While the Privacy Act allows information to be disclosed to Police, it does not require it.

Information privacy principle 4 provides that personal information may not be collected by means which are unfair. I considered that the police officer in this case had taken advantage of his influence and formed the opinion that fabricating a story in order to obtain information was a collection of information by unfair means.

Section 66(1) provides that an action will be an 'interference with the privacy of an individual' if it breaches an information privacy principle and it:

(i) has caused loss, detriment, damage, or injury to that individual, or may do so; or(ii) has adversely affected the rights, benefits, privileges, obligations, or interests of that individual, or may do so; or(iii) has resulted in significant humiliation, significant loss of dignity, or significant injury to the feelings of that individual, or may do so.

I had to consider whether the police action had any of these effects on the man or his children. The address they obtained was in fact an old residential address for the children and had never been used by their father.

Although deportation is undeniably a serious harm, I could not properly consider it as an adverse effect under the Privacy Act. The man was deported because he was an illegal immigrant and this action would have been taken whether or not Police had managed to obtain a current residential address for his children. I was not satisfied that the manner of the collection of his personal information had resulted in any adverse effects in relation to the man.

I accepted that it might have been distressing for the children to know that Police were attempting to obtain information about them. However, Police did not obtain their current address and did not make contact with them independently of the school. For these reasons, I was satisfied that the actions of Police had not resulted in any adverse effects in relation to the children.

I formed the opinion that the breach of principle 4 had not resulted in an 'interference with the privacy of an individual', because the adverse effects contemplated by s 66(1) had not been suffered in these circumstances. I discontinued my investigation accordingly.

December 1997

Indexing terms: Collecting personal information - New Zealand Police - Collection by unfair means - Misrepresenting reason for seeking information - 'Interference with the privacy of an individual' - Privacy Act 1993, s 66(1) - Information privacy principle 4