Subjective and discretionary.
A bit like the police in general, it goes along with “Policespeak”
“The accused was observed operating a motor vehicle on a public road whilst being brown, he assaulted a police officer by hitting the officer in the foot with his testicles in an attempt to evade arrest”
David Fisher in the Herald again
It may have a link elsewhere
Am I drawing too long a bow? Instead of this being the fattening of the wedge of a police state, is this the long arm of the liquor industry at work? The research is investigating the relationship of alcohol to harm and I can't really see the cops having a problem with this concept but the boozehounds have money to loose.
Thanks for posting this. I wrote about it on StatsChat, and other statisticians I've talked to today have agreed it's outrageous both specifically that Jarrod Gilbert should be denied at data access, and more generally that the data should come with discretionary veto over publication.
Because earlier comments have been mentioning pharmaceutical companies, I'd like to quote this from the 'Uniform Requirements' of the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors
Authors should avoid entering in to agreements with study sponsors, both for-profit and non-profit, that interfere with authors’ access to all of the study’s data or that interfere with their ability to analyze and interpret the data and to prepare and publish manuscripts independently when and where they choose.
Veto power isn't standard practice, particularly in medical research, because we know it gets misused.
I think you probably are drawing too long a bow. The police are generally not backwards in coming forwards in support of earlier closing hours, and lower drink-driving alcohol limits, and raising the alcohol-purchasing age, and other things not supported by the liquor industry. For all its power, I'd be very surprised to find Big Liqour able to affect police policy to this extent.
Also, it's clear the contract isn't only demanded of Dr Gilbert, but of all researchers wanting to access police statistics.
Also, it’s clear the contract isn’t only demanded of Dr Gilbert, but of all researchers wanting to access police statistics.
Apparently not according to Manu Caddie an earlier poster.
I’ve been working closely with Police and local gangs but haven’t been denied any information requested
If they were to stick to this literally, it would be less of an issue.
That might be true if they were a private company. But they are The NZ Police, funded by taxpayers. As such they have no right to withhold data (except where privacy is an issue).
They certainly have no right to demand to massage the findings from any data. They have every right to respond if they disagree with findings but that is completely different.
On this issue The Police are utterly and completely in the wrong and doubling down on that mistake is just stupid management.
My guess is someone imported this contract from some business and forgot that The Police are a public service, now they are too embarrassed to admit that they stuffed up.
Yes he's been given access to the information requested, but I wasn't clear from Manu's reply whether he's had to sign that contract to get it.
To me there are two separate issues here. One is that Dr Gilbert has been refused access to data for research. The other is that people who want data for research are (apparently) all expected to sign that contract. They're both bad, but they're different issues.
I have had friends that have joined and left the force for various reasons...
Me too. I know two people who were serving police officers and left the force for different reasons, mainly to do with the culture. There's probably a decent research project in this, finding out why people choose to leave the force in the prime of their careers. Oh wait... Mr Plod would never allow that sort of information to be published, would he.
wasn’t clear from Manu’s reply whether he’s had to sign that contract to get it.
True. I had assumed that he would have mentioned it if he had but assumptions are rarely gospel. Come to think of it though, the Gospel seems to assume a lot.
He wouldn't have any say. If you're talking to people who've left the police, you don't need the police's permission to do it.
Andrew Geddis: the Police contract seems to illegally contravene the OIA (which they cannot contract themselves out of).
That it has taken so long for an academic to come forward shows how well the threat of withdrawn access has worked. The same dynamic is wrecking the accountability of our government through what is left of journalism.
Kypros Kypri seems to be the poster boy for the issue of academic gagging by government departments.
Where's the bit in the police statement about ensuring that any response to a request for information complies with the OIA? I get the feeling they think it doesn't apply to academic requests, which is staggering. Certainly to the extent that a particular proposal requires some form of co-operation (eg ride-along), or the compiling of data that is not already compiled, or interviews that involve forming views that are not already formed, it need not be treated as an OIA request, but only to that extent. There are also withholding grounds that can be invoked in appropriate circumstances. That aside, though, there's no right for the police to vet applicants and research, and any "blacklist" that removes future rights to seek official information is simply unlawful. Privacy issues can usually be dealt with by redaction, not refusal.
Oh, and in case it needs adding, it is not a ground to refuse an OIA request that the Police are worried that "their" information might be misrepresented. That is simply one of the risks of an open society.
Police are worried that “their” information might be misrepresented. That is simply one of the risks of an open society.
Police even do it themselves
Police have been caught out tampering with South Auckland's burglary statistics,
You are probably right Lucy, as the cops deal with alcohol related harm on a daily basis, they would want policy and law formed by evidence to help their day to day policing. Their gagging says one of two things, they really, really don't like Dr Gilbert ( and his book patched is praised for its fairness) or they have something to hide about their policing of alcohol.
In my view, the simple solution is for Jarrod Gilbert to initiate a petition, calling for the House to conduct an URGENT Inquiry into the actions of NZ Police in this matter.
All Jarrod needs to do is to get the wording checked by Parliamentary staff who deal with petitions prior to distributing it to collect signatures, and to find an MP who will present the petition.
This course of action can be extremely effective, costs nothing, and targets exactly where it needs to go, in my view.
Having had some success with Parliamentary petitions, some of which have resulted in Select Committee Inquiries, for which I have provided evidence as the initiating petitioner - I recommend this course of action.
(Helped to stop the proposed Wellington 'Supercity' - see Petition 2014/0009 )
'Anti-privatisation / anti-corruption Public Watchdog'.
Confirmed and serious 2016 Auckland Mayoral candidate.
Their gagging says one of two things, they really, really don’t like Dr Gilbert ( and his book patched is praised for its fairness) or they have something to hide about their policing of alcohol.
I suspect it's the former; and that it comes back to one of the basic problems with police everywhere: they divide the world into good people and bad people. You're either one or the other. And you're generally judged by the company you keep. So Dr Gilbert, by even being even-handed in his treatment of gangs, rather than firmly against them in every possible way, cannot be good, and therefore must be bad.
Having the right to see the reports in advance is reasonably standard, though not uncontroversial. Veto power over publication is not.
Hypothetically, what would happen if Police attempted to veto someone's publication, but they went ahead and published anyway?
Would Police have much of a show in court if the information was, indeed, deemed discoverable under the OIA? Can a court, if given reason to do so, declare an agreement like this illegal across the board?
Not to suggest that it should be necessary to challenge this type of thing in such a way to begin with, of course.
This is the really bewildering thing. You'd think the Police of all people would welcome sound research informing evidence-based policy that works. OK, will it contain things that are hard to hear or politically embarrassing? Damn near certainly, but this is where you put on your blue serge grown-up pants, deal with it and get on with your job.
Evidence doesn't get them the funding they want.
Dr Stephen Marshall
I knew that title would come in handy :-D
The official Police statement released in the past hour. Incredible.
Call me a grammar nazi, but I find the use of "Police" as a singular noun in this release disturbing. Also the capitalisation. It may seem picky, but goes to state of mind, m'lud.
Thank God it wasn't just me feeling that way.
I find the use of “Police” as a singular noun in this release disturbing.
As if it was written by a machine/algorithm or some collective - a Borg?
even their empowering legislation calls them 'the New Zealand Police' or 'the Police' most of the time ...
and states that:
Police means the instrument of the Crown continued in existence by section 7(1)
7 New Zealand Police
(1) There continues to be an instrument of the Crown known as the New Zealand Police.
(2) The New Zealand Police is the same organisation as that—
(a) established as the Police Force under the Police Force Act 1886; and
(b) continued in existence as the Police Force under the Police Force Act 1908, the Police Force Act 1913, and the Police Force Act 1947; and
(c) continued in existence as the New Zealand Police under the Police Act 1958; and
(d) existing immediately before the commencement of this Act.
But then they did have their 'Force' forcibly removed in 1958!
I suspect their concept of themselves has diminished with the various enabling Acts' titles:
1846 the Armed Constabulary Ordinance
1867 the New Zealand Armed Constabulary Act
(with a short lived Provincial Police Force Act in there somewhere)
1886-1947 The Police Force Act (which also separated the militia out)
1958 The Police Act - the Force is no longer with them...
2008 The Policing Act - Now they're just a verb!
let's not forget this :
This Act is based on the following principles:
(a) principled, effective, and efficient policing services are a cornerstone of a free and democratic society under the rule of law:
(b) effective policing relies on a wide measure of public support and confidence:
(c) policing services are provided under a national framework but also have a local community focus:
(d) policing services are provided in a manner that respects human rights:
(e) policing services are provided independently and impartially:
(f) in providing policing services every Police employee is required to act professionally, ethically, and with integrity.
and they could uphold:
10 Roles of others acknowledged
(1) It is acknowledged that important and valuable roles in the performance of the functions of the Police are played by—
(a) public agencies or bodies (for example, certain departments of State, and local authorities); and
(b) the holders of certain statutory offices (for example, Māori wardens); and
(c) parts of the private sector (for example, the private security industry).
(2) It is also acknowledged that it is often appropriate, or necessary, for the Police to perform some of its functions in co-operation with individual citizens, or agencies or bodies other than the Police.
and to be honest I can't quite grasp what this is saying in relation to 'powers':
Effect of sections 8 to 10
Nothing in sections 8 to 10—
(a) imposes particular duties on, or gives particular powers to, the Police, the Commissioner, any Police employee, or the Minister; or
(b) affects the powers, functions, or duties of any agency other than the Police, or any person who is not the Commissioner, a Police employee, or the Minister.