Dismissal/Final Warning – K Harding, T Keene – Supervisor &/or other accountable leaders of Ministerial Services (MS) Information Requests Team
These 2 personnel & maybe others unbeknown to me have gone to quite extraordinary lengths to withhold the truth from me!
On 2 June 2022, Jackie Sheehan-Wanhill of this team ‘personally’ wrote to me “As your request for information relates directly to an open enquiry, police are unable to release the information requested”. To explain this statement, Jackie was confirming Europol were investigating my case. This is the only OIA response I have ever received entirely being a written statement from a Member of this team – all other OIA responses have been this team passing on letters written by other PNHQ personnel.
However, on 9 December, D Rose – Acting Director: International Service Group – informed me the June correspondence was “simply a human error” – Europol had not been investigating my crime report
As I
- had found ‘honest & humble’ Jackie to be 1 of only 2 honourable personnel I have dealt with since 28 January 2021
- had copies of emails Jackie sent to Clinton requesting his input to reply to that OIA request & no (provided to me) evidence he responded to her
- Jackie behaved completely correctly & differently with another of my very similar ‘non-response’ OIA requests at the same time
After 2 months of no response from Clinton (Rose), stated in 1 February 2023 letter to Keene “I put it to you the much more believable course of events is there was clinton-Jackie email &/or phone discussion from 27 May 2022 to when she responded to me on 2 June. I put it to you the much more believable course of events is clinton instructed Jackie to inform me my communication request was declined as the matter was under active Europol investigation”.
To make a very long story very short; Dunn, Harding & Keene outright refused (including misrepresenting & quoting irrelevant Parliamentary Acts) all my requests to determine whether or not my belief is true! An innocent party, with nothing to hide, would simply provide the requested evidence. A guilty party, with something to hide, behaves like these 3 people.
Further support for my dismissal/final warning recommendation is below – they have obviously instructed their team to ignore all correspondence & OIA requests from me regarding my case. They are blatantly withholding the truth!
DEFINITE Dismissal – Lee Hodgson, Director
Most of the comments in the above section also apply to Hodgson.
Between 11 October 2023 & 12 November 2025, the 1-3 Private Secretary Police in Mark Mitchell’s office forwarded 47 times to Hodgson my actual – not just an email – (clearly marked in both email subject line & document title “Calling for Resignation of Andrew Coster” & “Widespread PNHQ Corruption and Serious Misconduct & Neglect of Duty”) Police performance complaint.
47 times Hodgson took no action with my Police Commissioner performance complaint.
On 23 April 2024, frustrated with Ombudsman Office’s lack of progress, emailed Hodgson to pursue 11 long outstanding OIA responses. Provided Hodgson with Chief Ombudsman letter confirming the validity of 4 of my OIA requests – 3 other requests were merely requesting email addresses – 2 other requests were very straightforward existing documents ones – only 2 requests were still under discussion with the Ombudsman Office. Despite 13 follow-up emails, no response.
On 11 June 2026, in response to my OIA request of 2 generic Police documents, Hodgson stated “Police is aware you continue to use online platforms to publicly insult various public officials. Police believes your purpose in making this request is to cause further
distress & inconvenience. Your intention of this request is believed to further your grievances”.
As Megan in the below section reports to Lee, Hodgson has to take responsibility for her very poor management of Winch.
Defies logic Hodgson – who is devoid of empathy, integrity, professionalism & respect (Police’s so-called values) – is employed in a Customer facing team management role where at least maintaining – preferably enhancing – Police’s reputation is a mandatory job requirement! Hodgson should be a crème de crème Customer service person, yet she obviously is not – no way such a poorly appointed ‘soulless’ person is appropriate for this role.
DEFINITE Dismissal – Megan Winch, Manager
On 20 August 2024, received a letter from Winch claiming – as my OIA requests were “frivolous or vexatious” – the 11 long outstanding responses were refused! Winch referenced an Ombudsman’s guide & extensively commented on the 7 factors they consider relevant in determining whether a request is frivolous or vexatious. Immediately emailed Winch an extensive rebuttal of those 7 factors in my case.
Also stated to Winch if I had wanted to – as she claimed – “cause disruption & abuse right to request official information”, would have made 173 separate OIA requests for a paper trail of “I want police to be known as service, not force” Commissioner & 8 direct reports (office staff) Totally Ignoring my 173 service pleas since 16 August 2021. Despite 5 follow-up emails, no response.
Also in her 20 August letter, Winch claimed “Since 1 March 2024 alone, Police has received over 750 emails from you.” (Reality was more like 75 emails) This ‘disturbing’ statement confirms Winch had proactively contacted Police’s IT department to determine this number. There was absolutely no justified reason for Winch to engage in such (potential abuse of Police resources) ‘investigation’ behaviour – I am a crime victim, not perpetrator! Only conclusion is Winch unprofessionally did so to support her continued inflammatory statements.
Immediately submitted an “As it looks like police have an IT programme to Very Simply calculate the number of emails sent to a specific address within a certain timeframe, requesting the total number of emails exchanged between police & their Europol liaison officer since 20 October 2021” OIA request.
On 13 September, Winch responded “It unclear what value there is in identifying the number of emails exchanged between Police & its
Europol liaison officer. More seriously, during the period surrounding this request you sent further denigrating communications including emails to Police staff & Ministers of the Crown calling for the resignation of the Commissioner of Police & the dismissal of
the Minister of the Police.”! Yet again, Winch refused to provide a response to my supposed “frivolous or vexatious” OIA request. Furthermore, as Winch knows, there is no requirement under the Act for the Public to provide justifications for their OIA requests.
Also in the 13 September letter, Winch refused to respond to another of my OIA requests – “Given your previous repeated
communications linking your personal grievances with certain Police staff with staffing reductions within Police, it is reasonable to infer you are requesting the consultation document because you see it as a means to further those grievances, which would be an abuse of the right to request official information.”
Winch knows this is an ‘extraordinarily’ incorrect claim! Winch knows the Act does not limit the Public to submitting ‘positive’ OIA requests only – that the Public are not allowed to submit OIA requests to collect information for their performance complaints about Government agencies. Winch knows a large percentage/majority of OIA requests have a ‘negative’ intent basis.
To make this issue worse, on 19 December, discovered this OIA requested consultation document was posted on police’s website – so Winch had previously refused to provide me with (an url reference) to Publicly available information!
On 7 October, received a letter from Winch claiming – as, again, my 4 new OIA requests were “frivolous or vexatious” – the responses were refused! Her letter stated “The requests include some of the same characteristics that led to the previous refusals.”
Also, her letter included inflammatory statement – “You continue to send repeated requests for info Police has previously refused, such as staff members’ contact details … You continue to send vexatious correspondence to a wide range of Police staff resubmitting demands you have made on numerous occasions previously without success. I am also aware you regularly send unsolicited correspondence to various Ministers denigrating Police staff.”
Immediately emailed Winch a 3-pages letter outlining how the 4 new requests did not violate any factors determining whether they were frivolous or vexatious. Tried to calm down the situation with this covering email statement – “You are unnecessarily making ‘mountains out of molehills’. My (very) simple OIA requests are entirely within the spirit of the OIA – most of them would have been requested by other Public members, who you would have fully answered. Reasonably & very simply answer them, then ‘end of story’ – as there will be zero need, I will not mention them to you again. I am baffled as to why you are ‘fighting’ my (very) simple OIA requests. Even though we are merely names to/do not know each other, it is as if you have a personal vendetta against me! Let’s immediately end this mutually time wasting experience – we all have much better things to do – with the (very) simple responses by 11 October“. Despite 5 follow-up emails, no response.
On 21 November, received a letter from Winch claiming – as, yet again, my 2 new OIA requests were “frivolous or vexatious” – the responses were refused! Her letter included another inflammatory statement – “I note both before & since submitting the requests you have continued to engage in the same behaviours that led me to find your previous requests to be frivolous or vexatious. For example, you: – continue to email Ministers on a regular basis further denigrating Police staff and offering unsolicited advice on matters of policy & the appropriate candidates to be the next Police Commissioner.
– repeat requests for information Police has previously refused, such as contact details for members of staff… – send repeated correspondence to a range of Police staff submitting demands you have made on numerous occasions previously without success. For example, that they draw the Commissioner’s attention to your letter disparaging multiple staff members & calling for disciplinary actions against them.”
On 18 December, received a letter from Winch claiming – as, yet again, my 2 new OIA requests were “frivolous or vexatious” – the responses were refused! Her letter included another inflammatory statement – “I received an email from you… stating…: “Most of my OIA requests would have been requested by other Public members, who you would have fully Answered”, This entirely misses the point. I have not refused your requests because of the information you requested, I have refused them because the way you correspond with Police staff & other individuals led me to conclude your requests are vexatious. Despite multiple opportunities to change the way you correspond… , you have not done (so).”
My immediate responding letter included the following statements:
– As per my 13 September & 7 October letters, I detailed how my OIA requests do not violate any of the factors used to determine whether they are frivolous or vexatious. As you did not respond to either of my letters, logical conclusion is my stance is the correct one.
– Your letter of today entirely misses the point. As I understand it, your role is: – not to manage police performance complaints from the Public. – to manage OIA requests from the Public i.e. receive them, source the requested information from the appropriate police personnel & respond to the requesters.
– police receive 75k+ OIA requests per annum. Your letter of today implies, for each of those requests, your team first check whether the requester has previously communicated ‘nicely’ in your opinion with other parts of police. If they haven’t in your opinion, their requests are categorized as “frivolous or vexatious”. Of course, such a ‘first check’ does not occur for every OIA request – for some reason only known to you, I am receiving this ‘special’ treatment.
– As I understand it, your team’s OIA response criteria is limited to: Is the OIA request worded politely/respectfully etc? Does the OIA request abide by/compile with the factors used to determine whether it is frivolous or vexatious? If the answers to both of those questions are “yes”, your team is obligated to respond to the
OIA request. The nature of all other communications between the requester & other parts of police is irrelevant to your team. Again, your team is not an active part of the Public complaints process or custodian of any sort of “How the Public are required to communicate with police” style guide.
Even though 6 of my other OIA requests had nothing to do with this Police performance complaint & Winch would have provided these responses to other Public members who – in her opinion – have communicated ‘nicely’ with all other parts of Police, she refused to provide those same responses to me!
On 16 December, OIA requested “On 20 November 2024; I sent a letter regarding widespread corruption and (serious) misconduct & neglect of duty experienced over 3.75+ years with pnhq personnel to Richard Chambers. I never received an acknowledgement or response from him/his office. Requesting copies of all external & internal communications, messages & reports related to my letter between the commissioner/his office & any other party it has been commented on or discussed with – not limited to within police.”
On 31 January 2025, Winch responded my request was refused – “I consider it to be frivolous or vexatious”! ‘Incredibly’, Winch determined one of my main prolonged issues with Police – inability to find any senior personnel willing to review my widespread PNHQ corruption and serious misconduct & neglect of duty complaint – was “frivolous”!
In this letter, Winch also reaffirmed her inappropriate snooping behavior by stating “I am aware for a period of approximately a month, from just prior from late December to late January. you did not send correspondence to Police”!
Immediately responded (cced to Lee Hodgson & Andrea Conlan, Chief Operating Officer) “I REALLY look forward to your recommendation how to directly get my document to Richard Chambers.” Despite 38 follow-up emails, no response.
On 26 February, received a letter from Winch claiming – as, yet again, my new OIA request for the Police Commissioner’s Executive level restructuring consultation document was “frivolous or vexatious” – the response was refused! Her letter included yet another inflammatory statement – “you have continued to engage in behaviours that led me to refuse your previous requests, including in particular sending repeated correspondence to a range of Police staff & external parties submitting demands you have made on numerous occasions previously without success. For example, that they draw the Commissioner’s attention to your letter disparaging multiple staff members & calling for disciplinary actions against them.”
In a personally vindictive manner, Winch repeatedly waited until 20th business day (OIA requirement) to inform me my OIA requests were “frivolous or vexatious”. Winch knows the Ombudsman office has directed Government agencies to provide their responses as soon as is reasonably possible – she should have provided such personally vindictive responses within 5 business days of the OIA requests!
(After reading the above paragraph – Winch is aware of this website – she sped up her responses, though maintaining her “frivolous or vexatious” refusal stance!)
On 3 April, Chief Ombudsman informed me Police (Winch) knew of this website’s existence. Despite this knowledge, on 23 April, Winch still continued with her confrontational approach! Her quite inaccurate letter included “You have continued to…send repeated correspondence disparaging multiple staff members & calling for disciplinary actions against them”!
Had previously (on 8 April) emailed Winch “Despite working for police for 21 years, you seem to believe No Public Member has Ever complained about police performance! I draw your attention to “Professional Conduct Statistics” @ https://www.police.govt.nz/about-us/about-new-zealand-police/police-professional-conduct/professional-conduct-statistics There were 3,752 Public complaints from January to September 2024!”.
All/the vast majority of those complaints will include disparaging comments about staff members & call for disciplinary actions against them! Of course, the nature of complaints is to be critical! So, immediately responded to Winch’s 23 April letter with “‘Enlighten’ me as to why about 5,000 NZers are allowed to submit police performance complaints Every year, yet according to you Andrew Flanagan is Actively Blocked from doing likewise – why am I ‘honoured’ with this ‘special’ treatment I do Not want?”
On 27 August, discovered previous OIA requested consultation documents Winch refused to provide to me had been in the Public domain for 7 months – so, again, Winch had refused to provide me with (an url reference) to Publicly available information!
On 13 May 2026, ‘nasty’ Winch returned. In her OIA response for a generic Police document, stated “…refused … as I consider it to be frivolous or vexatious… You continue to email Ministers on a regular basis further denigrating Police staff & offering unsolicited advice. Police is aware you continue to use online platforms to publicly insult various public officials. Police believe you are still attempting to further your grievances and your purpose in making this request is to cause further distress & inconvenience”.
As her role involves direct Public interaction on a daily basis, as outlined above, Winch’s ‘service’ approach is most inappropriate. Her very first letter to me was of a confrontational nature &, despite my attempt to calm down the situation, continued so. Winch refused to engage in any conversation to reach a mutual understanding of the 7 frivolous or vexatious factors. By enquiring of Police’s IT department as to the number of emails I had sent the organization, she engaged in ‘snooping’ behavior. Winch needlessly assumed as to the reason why I submitted certain OIA requests.
Despite having very limited knowledge of my highly dissatisfactory nearly 4 years Police experience, Winch constantly referred to my interactions with other parts of the organization & the Police Ministers. My dealings is with them are none of her business! Winch’s communications to me were of a North Korean “How dare you even consider complaining about us – you should be most thankful for even the smallest of service from us” style.
As a NZ citizen, contrary to Winch’s conveyed belief, am fully entitled to comment on Government policies & agencies’ performance – that is how democracy works! As if my well experienced Police opinions are not ‘worthy’, how dare she use such words as “unsolicited advice/correspondence”!
Understand Winch is an over 20-years Police veteran. Yet, she is still devoid of de-escalation skills! In fact, her entire involvement was grounded in an escalation mindset – with zero willingness to calmly discuss/’work through’ the various matters. As most of her Police career has been in Ministerial Services, there will be many other Public members who have – like me – ‘borne the brunt of her inappropriate fury’ over the years.
In my 50+ years, have never experienced a person so determined to be so confrontational as Winch! As Winch is an appalling Police representative (for many years), she should be dismissed.
DEFINITE Dismissal: 1-3 Private Secretary Police in Mark Mitchell’s office
Between 11 October 2023 & 12 November 2025, Mitchell’s office received 47 (30 directly & 17 via Costello’s office) times my actual – not just an email – (clearly marked in both email subject line & document title “Calling for Resignation of Andrew Coster” & “Widespread PNHQ Corruption and Serious Misconduct & Neglect of Duty”) Police performance complaint.
47 times the 1-3 Private Secretary Police ‘blindly’ forwarded those complaints to Hodgson. As per his interview video in the “Mark Mitchell” section, they should have brought my complaint to Mitchell’s attention!
(“Bypassing democratic oversight, Police staff ran Minister’s office”)
Defies logic people devoid of empathy, integrity, professionalism & respect (Police’s so-called values) are employed in an ‘executive support’ role supposedly leading the protecting & serving of the Public! These Executive & Minister support staff should be the crème de crème, yet they obviously are not – no way such poorly appointed ‘soulless’ people are appropriate for these roles.
Written Warnings – Rest of Ministerial Services Information Requests Team
From July 2023, they have deliberately ignored my new case related OIA requests & follow-up emails to past ones. (Submitted a new non case related request in September, which was acknowledged & responded to as per their business-as-usual process) All my new case related requests have a genuine purpose/None of them are of a frivolous nature to waste police time as revenge.
On 6 October, in exchange for 5 (months long) outstanding OIA responses, offered to minimize their mention in this complaint. Due to their non-response, on 9 October, informed them had decided to upgrade my disciplinary action recommendation but there was still time to avoid that as had not started writing this complaint yet. They ignored that ‘invitation’ too.
In December, they refused (“under section 9(2)(a) of OIA, to protect the privacy of natural persons”) my OIA requests for the names & email addresses of the head of the National Integrity Unit & the next 2 people in the chain of command above Cramer. This was clearly a misconduct (escalation obstruction) response. MS had set a recent precedence as to being willing to answer such OIA requests – on 30 November, they answered another of my OIA requests which was worded exactly the same (except Dunn was substituted for Cramer). MS know Chief Ombudsman has very strongly directed Government agencies on such requests i.e “Ombudsman’s general position is there is usually no basis for withholding staff names if all that would be revealed is what they did in their official capacity—‘New Zealand does not have a tradition of an anonymous public service’.”
From July 2024, without explanation, they ignored all my correspondence – even new non-case related OIA requests & follow-up emails for previously acknowledged overdue OIA responses. None of my OIA requests are of a vexatious nature. While there are people who abuse the OIA to use up Government resources as vendetta revenge, that is not the case with me. All my OIA requests have a purpose – with my case related ones, as per the accountability & transparency purposes of the Act, in lieu of Police’s unwillingness to communicate otherwise, to try to discover what they really have/not done.
Police report @ https://www.police.govt.nz/sites/default/files/publications/police-oia-statistics-jan-june2023.pdf twenty-three January to June 2023 OIA requests were escalated by the Public to the Office of the Ombudsman – about half of them were mine! As at the final date of this letter, to further illustrate PNHQ hatred of accountability, 11 OIA requests dating back to January 2023 are still outstanding! Seems MS have allowed themselves to be (further) corrupted by Clinton, Dunn, Guthrie &/or Thom; to hide the (corruption and serious misconduct & neglect of duty confirmation) truth from me!
Appreciate you sharing & signing my “Independent Commission of Inquiry into Tribal NZ Police Culture is Warranted” petition. Thanks in anticipation