Police officer passed data to suspect

Press, 16 July 1987, Page 5

Police officer passed data to suspect

PA Wellington A senior police officer passed information from the Wanganui computer on to suspects during an Auckland drug ring inquiry, a report issued by the Wanganui Computer Centre privacy commissioner, Mr Paul Molineaux has revealed. The report, for the year ended March, 1987, said the officer admitted the charges and the case was referred to the SolicitorGeneral with a view to prosecution, though this was eventually not recommended. The officer had resigned before proceedings under the Police Regulations had started. The report uses the information case as an example of abuses of the computer centre. The police investigated 15 suspected breaches of the act, eight of which were substantiated, said the report. In one case prosecution resulted from unauthorised access to the system by a member of the public who was convicted then fined. The remaining seven cases were dealt with internally under police regulations, said the report. In another example, an off-duty traffic officer queried the motor-vehicle register about a car he wanted to buy. Police left the matter with the Transport Department. In a third example a civilian police operator used a constable’s code to make an identification check on a vehicle outside her home. She was reprimanded for using the constable’s identification. Mr Molineaux’s report repeats the conclusions of

an in-depth inquiry into allegations by a former police sergeant that police misuse of the computer was common. It concluded that misuse happened on some occasions but was not widespread. The report said Mr Molineaux received 35 complaints under section 15 of the act which is a means whereby errors and omissions on the database can be rectified and the record set straight. Of those, 15 were upheld and the information amended and 15 were not upheld. One complaint was partly upheld and four were still under investigation. Twenty-three complaints were received in the previous year. Categorised by user departments, two of the complaints upheld were about information held by the Police Department, 12 were about the Ministry of Transport, one about the Justice Department and one about both the Police and Transport departments. As an example errors in Police Department information the report says one complainant had the same name and alias as a defendant on the records and had been mistaken for him. A complaint about Justice Department information involved correcting a charge from “supplying cannabis plant to a person under 18” to “a person over 18.” A third example was of a complainant’s traffic conviction history amended. A careless driving charge had been entered against his name but had subsequently been withdrawn, which had not been recorded.