Alexander Pryazhnikov wins privacy battle against police after renting billboards to ask woman out

She also complained to police who contacted the company and issued a border alert for Pryazhnikov, who was living in Australia, so police could speak to him if he entered the country.

Phantom Billstickers said Pryazhnikov police contacted them and also copied his employer into their correspondence, creating problems at his workplace in Sydney.

Pryazhnikov then requested information from the police under the Privacy Act about “any report, complaint or investigation, whether oral or written” filed with the police regarding the billboard incident in order to be able to take legal action against the billboard company.

However, police initially refused his request before releasing a heavily redacted version of the file, but not before contacting Immigration NZ, which placed surveillance at the border.

Dissatisfied with the way the police handled his request for information, Pryazhnikov filed a complaint with the Human Rights Review Tribunal which this week ruled in his favor and ordered the police to pay him 17,500 $ compensation.

In his court filings, Pryazhnikov said the billboards were a “romantic gesture intended to impress” the woman with whom he had a brief relationship.

The court held a hearing last year to hear Pryazhnikov’s allegations that police had violated his privacy by not providing him with information about their investigation into the billboard incident and the subsequent complaint of the woman he had tried to woo.

His application was initially lodged as an OIA, but was refused on the grounds that he was not a New Zealand citizen. Pryazhnikov then refiled the same request under the Privacy Act, which states that anyone can request information that an agency or company has about them.

However, police refused his request for information entirely in July 2018, leading to a complaint to the Privacy Commissioner.

Their refusal came three days after he was stopped from boarding an international flight from Sydney to Auckland to meet a colleague after Immigration NZ had concerns about his hope of meeting the woman. This was despite Pryazhnikov having informed police in advance that he would be traveling to New Zealand to meet a colleague.

After police refused Pryazhnikov’s request for information, he filed a complaint with the Privacy Commissioner, prompting police to release a heavily redacted version of the case summary report.

However, unhappy with this outcome, Pryazhnikov reiterated his request and the police added a sentence to his initial release.

Pryazhnikov later filed a complaint with the court, claiming that the police failed to disclose his information, inappropriately disclosed it to other parties and were late. He accused the police of acting in bad faith and deliberately delayed providing information in the hope that he would be refused entry to New Zealand.

In contrast, police said they had not invaded Pryazhnikov’s privacy and were authorized to release only a redacted version of the case summary report as part of an ongoing investigation .

Police also retained notebook notes, a domestic harm investigation report as well as emails between Pryazhnikov and the woman, emails between police and Immigration NZ and emails between police and Phantom Billstickers.

But the police refused to hand them over to Pryazhnikov and refused to respond to his request at all, saying the investigation was still ongoing on July 30, 2018.

In its decision, the court said that as of that date, the police had nothing left to investigate and the case was no longer active. Pryazhnikov was never charged with any criminal offense following the police investigation.

“As a result, there was no active investigation which, in itself, could justify the withholding of Mr. Pryazhnikov’s personal information,” the judgment said.

A police witness told the court that releasing information about border alerts could alert people the police wanted to speak to and that complainants should be able to give evidence freely without fear of information being leaked.

“We accept that disclosure of the operational methods used by the police could potentially negate their effectiveness. However, we do not accept that these concerns arise in this case and it is important that the police do not apply a blanket approach,” the court said in response.

“The police were not permitted to conceal all conflicting information regarding Mr. Pryazhnikov and were only permitted to conceal certain limited information as part of maintaining the ground of non-disclosure law. The police therefore had no valid reason to refuse Mr Pryazhnikov’s request in its entirety. In doing so, this violated his privacy.

The court found Pryazhnikov had a right to understand what the complaint against him was and to know what police had told Immigration NZ and Phantom Billstickers, because without that he could not challenge its accuracy.

“Mr Pryazhnikov was very stressed and anxious not to know the full nature of the complaint. After being prevented from boarding his flight from Sydney Airport, he had a genuine fear that a false allegation of rape or other serious sexual offenses had been made,” the court decision said.

“Mr. Pryazhnikov was hampered in his attempts to defend himself against any allegations of sexual offenses, to restore his reputation, to save his job, and to resolve and restore his immigration status, because he did not know what personal information the police had about him.

“As he was unable to access his personal information, his ability to respond to these potential situations or request correction of his personal information was hindered.”

The court said the police had invaded Pryazhnikov’s privacy and ordered that he be provided with the documents he requested, albeit with some redactions to protect the complainant.

The court also ordered police to pay Pryazhnikov $17,500 for humiliation, loss of dignity and injury to feelings, as well as $1,500 for legal costs.

Pryazhnikov told NZME he was generally satisfied with the decision and the compensation he was awarded, but noted the court was unable to deal with questions of police conduct and was considering take further legal action.

“This judgment is only about access to documents, really,” he said.

“We also want our government agencies to handle things quickly. »

Pryazhnikov said it was frustrating that he had to take the case to court, instead of police admitting they were wrong.

“Really, what I want is an apology from them.”

Pryazhnikov said that ultimately nothing came of the police investigation, but it had far-reaching consequences for him, as Phantom Billstickers informed his workplace of the police and problems with Immigration NZ.

“They (the police) have done nothing at all over the years,” he said.

“But I still walked around Wellington like I had a red dot on my forehead.”

This is the third judgment handed down by the court this year in which the police have invaded a person’s privacy.

In one case, they had to pay $50,000 to a sexual assault complainant after spending years trying to find out why their alleged attacker was never charged. In another case, police withheld information that a Porsche driver said could have helped him defend the charges against him in court.

Police have been contacted for comment.

A spokesperson for Phantom Billstickers said it did not wish to comment on the court’s decision.

Jeremy Wilkinson is an Open Justice journalist based in Manawatū who covers courts and justice issues with an interest in the courts. He has been a journalist for almost a decade and has worked for NZME since 2022.