1 Feb 2007, 09:00

A man was returning to New Zealand after an overseas trip. He and his family were stopped and they and their baggage were searched. This resulted in inconvenience and embarrassment. The reason for the search was that the New Zealand Customs Service had received information from a member of the public ('the informant') that the man was carrying drugs. The information was incorrect; no drugs were found.

The Customs officer told the man why he was conducting the search. The man said that it was likely that the informant had provided the information maliciously. He was on one side of a family dispute, and he believed that the information had been given solely to make his life more difficult. He travelled out of New Zealand frequently, and was worried that the situation might recur.

The man asked Customs for the informant's name, so that he could verify that the informant was maliciously motivated, to prevent recurrence. Customs acknowledged that it seemed that the information had been provided maliciously, but refused to give him the name of the informant. He complained to me about this refusal.

I conducted an investigation. I indicated to the man that it was likely that Customs could withhold the informant's name under section 27(1)(c) of the Privacy Act. This permits an agency to refuse access to personal information under principle 6 if giving access would be likely to prejudice the maintenance of the law, including the prevention, investigation and detection of offences. Customs relies on the supply of information, including from members of the public, about possible offences so that it can fulfil its statutory function to protect the borders. If it became known that Customs released names of informants to those seeking access to personal information, it would deter people from providing information, and make it more difficult for Customs to maintain the law.

This position does not change if an informant is, or may have been, motivated by malice to provide incorrect information. The reason behind section 27(1)(c) is not to protect the informant. It is to ensure that the law is maintained. Revealing names of informants who were believed to be motivated by malice would still create a substantial risk that people (including well-intentioned people) would be deterred from giving information. The effect on Customs' work would therefore be the same. Also, Customs' investigation procedures should be robust enough to determine when an allegation is baseless and to ensure that no serious adverse effects ensue.

I acknowledged that malicious provision of false information creates particular concerns for people in the complainant's position. I suggested that, under principle 7, the complainant should request that a note of the incident be made on his Customs' records, to reduce the chances of serious inconvenience in the future. He did so and Customs attached his statement of correction to his file.

While the complainant was not wholly satisfied with this outcome, he chose not to pursue his complaint further. I therefore closed the file.

March 2007

Access to personal information – Customs – name of informant – false information, provided maliciously – maintenance of the law – principle 6, section 27(1)(c)

Correction of personal information – Customs – statement of correction placed on file – principle 7(1)(b)