Phantom Billstickers sells advertising on small billboards in 14 centres nationwide. Photo / Greg Bowker
A “romantic gesture” backfired for Alexander Pryazhnikov after he paid for seven billboards asking a woman out on a date, only to have her call the police instead.
“Dear [name of woman], I will be in Wellington during the weekend of 22-24 June. Would you spare a couple of hours? No other purpose than to see you, so any time is good,” those billboards, placed around the central city in 2018 read.
Concerned by the billboards, the woman, who has name suppression, complained to the company who put them up, Phantom Billstickers.
She also complained to the police who contacted the company and put a border alert out for Pryazhnikov, who lived in Australia, so police could speak to him if he entered the country.
Phantom Billstickers told Pryazhnikov police had contacted them and also copied his employer into their correspondence, creating issues at his workplace in Sydney.
Pryazhnikov then requested information from the police under the Privacy Act for “any report, complaint, or inquiry, verbal or written” lodged with the police regarding the billboard incident so he could pursue legal action against the billboard company.
However, the police initially refused his request before releasing a heavily redacted version of the case file, though not before they contacted Immigration NZ, who placed a border watch on him.
Unhappy with the way police handled his request for information Pryazhnikov lodged a claim with the Human Rights Review Tribunal which this week ruled in his favour and ordered the police to pay him $17,500 in compensation.
In his filings to the tribunal, Pryazhnikov said the billboards were a “romantic gesture designed to impress” the woman, with whom he’d had a brief relationship.
The tribunal held a hearing last year to hear Pryazhnikov’s claim police had interfered with his privacy by failing to release information to him about its investigation into the billboard incident and subsequent complaint from the woman he’d been trying to woo.
His request was originally filed as an OIA but was refused on the basis he wasn’t a New Zealand citizen. Pryazhnikov then re-filed the same request under the Privacy Act, which states anyone can request information an agency or company holds about them.
However, police refused his request for information entirely in July 2018, prompting 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 he was hoping to meet the woman. This was despite Pryazhnikov advising police ahead of time he would be travelling to New Zealand to meet a colleague.
After police refused Pryazhnikov’s request for information he lodged a complaint with the Privacy Commissioner, which prompted police into releasing a heavily redacted version of the case summary report.
However, unhappy with that result Pryazhnikov reiterated his request, and police added one sentence to their initial release.
Pryazhnikov then laid a claim with the tribunal that police had failed to release his information, disclosed it inappropriately to other parties and was late. He accused police of acting in bad faith and deliberately delayed releasing information to him in the hope he would be denied entry to New Zealand.
By contrast, police said it had not breached Pryazhnikov’s privacy and it was entitled to release only a redacted version of the case summary report in an ongoing investigation.
The police also held notebook entries, a family 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 police refused to release those to Pryazhnikov, and refused to fulfil his request at all, claiming the investigation was still ongoing on July 30, 2018.
In its ruling, the tribunal said that by this date the police had nothing further to investigate and the file was no longer active. Pryazhnikov was never charged with any criminal offence following the police investigation.
“Accordingly there was no active investigation, which in itself could justify withholding Mr Pryazhnikov’s personal information,” its ruling reads.
A police witness told the tribunal releasing information about border alerts could tip off people police wanted to speak to and that complainants should be able to give evidence freely without fear that information would be released.
“We accept that disclosure of operational methods used by police can potentially nullify their effectiveness. However, we do not accept those concerns arise in this case and it is important that police do not apply a blanket approach,” the tribunal said in response.
“The police were not entitled to withhold all mixed information from Mr Pryazhnikov and were only entitled to withhold certain limited information under the maintenance of the law withholding ground. Police therefore had no proper basis for refusing Mr Pryazhnikov’s request in its entirety. By doing so it interfered with his privacy.”
The tribunal found Pryazhnikov was entitled to understand what the complaint against him was as well as know what police told Immigration NZ and Phantom Billstickers, because without it he couldn’t challenge its accuracy.
“Mr Pryazhnikov was highly stressed and anxious by not knowing the complete nature of the complaint. After he was stopped from boarding his flight from Sydney airport, he was genuinely fearful that a false allegation of rape or other serious sexual offending had been made,” the tribunal’s ruling reads.
“Mr Pryazhnikov was hampered in attempts to defend himself from any allegation of sexual offending, to restore his reputation, to save his job, and to resolve and restore his immigration status by not knowing what personal information police held about him.
“As he was unable to access his personal information, he was hampered in his ability to respond to those potential situations or ask for his personal information to be corrected.”
The tribunal made a declaration that police had interfered with Pryazhnikov’s privacy and ordered he be provided with the documents he’d requested, albeit with certain redactions to protect the complainant.
The tribunal also ordered police to pay Pryazhnikov $17,500 for humiliation, loss of dignity and injury to feelings, as well as $1500 in legal costs.
Pryazhnikov told NZME that overall he was happy with the ruling and the compensation awarded to him, but noted that the tribunal couldn’t deal with issues of police conduct and was considering taking further legal action.
“This judgment is only about getting access to documents, really,” he said.
“We also want our Government agencies to be dealing with things quickly.”
Pryazhnikov said it was frustrating that he’d had to take matters to the tribunal, rather than the police admitting that they had got things wrong.
“Really, what I want is an apology from them.”
Pryazhnikov said ultimately, nothing came of the police’s investigation but it had far-reaching consequences for him in terms of Phantom Billstickers telling his workplace about the police complaint and issues with Immigration NZ.
“They [police] did nothing at all over the years,” he said.
“But, still I was walking around Wellington like I have a red dot on my forehead.”
The ruling is the third released from the tribunal this year where police have been found to have interfered with someone’s privacy.
In one instance, they were required to pay a sexual assault complainant $50,000 after they spent years trying to find out why their alleged attacker was never charged. In another case, police withheld information a Porsche driver claimed could have helped him defend charges against him in court.
A police spokesperson said that the three recent claims before the tribunal happened to have gone against the police.
“The size and complexity of some police files, as well as the competing privacy interests of victims, witnesses and offenders, makes the task of making decisions on requests challenging,” their statement reads.
“Police is actively working to provide a timely and sound response to information requests and to keep improving process, training and guidance.”
A spokesperson for Phantom Billstickers said it did not want to comment on the tribunal’s ruling.
Jeremy Wilkinson is an Open Justice reporter based in Manawatū covering courts and justice issues with an interest in tribunals. He has been a journalist for nearly a decade and has worked for NZME since 2022.
Former Act president's lawyer claims sentence was too harsh, calls for home detention.