A man who hired small billboards asking a woman on a date claims police denied him access to his information. Photo / NZME
A man who hired small billboards asking a woman on a date claims police denied him access to his information. Photo / NZME
A Russian man challenging how police handled his privacy requests after a failed attempt at courting romance has given evidence about what he claims was an unfair investigation into him.
Alexander Pryazhnikov, who lives in Sydney, hired seven billboards in central Wellington in June 2018 asking a localwoman if she would go on a date with him. The woman’s identity is suppressed.
The seven Phantom Billsticker ads placed on Wellington’s Cuba St read: “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.”
The woman was a former acquaintance the man hadn’t seen in seven years, and his emails to her before placing the billboards got no response.
After noticing the posters naming her, she made a complaint to police, saying she felt threatened and that Pryazhnikov had repeatedly contacted her before placing the billboards.
Pryazhnikov alleges that after he was made aware of the woman’s complaint from a third party, police did not provide him with all information it held on him, nor allowed him to correct the information. He says he made both requests under the provisions of the Privacy Act.
Police lawyer Victoria Squires said today that any redaction or withholding of information was done to uphold the law or to protect the privacy of the complainant.
Pryazhnikov and Squires appeared for day two of the three-day Human Rights Review Tribunal hearing into the claim today, with Pryazhnikov giving evidence in the morning.
Phantom Billstickers sells advertising on small billboards in 14 centres nationwide. Photo / Greg Bowker
Much of his evidence spoke of the nature of the relationship and the events after the initial police complaint. This evidence was not strictly in the purview of the tribunal claim, which is looking at breaches of the Privacy Act’s 13 principles, but provided context.
Pryazhnikov strongly denied he posed a threat to the woman or that his intentions went beyond just catching up.
He says police detailed the woman’s complaint to Immigration New Zealand, who then stopped Pryazhnikov from boarding a plane to New Zealand on an unrelated planned visit in July 2018.
“The goal was to stop me from visiting NZ,” he claimed. He said he believed authorities perceived him as a “madman” and wouldn’t give him a fair hearing, nor give him full access to what had been said about him.
Pryazhnikov was never charged, but feared the complaint could affect his immigration status.
Other pleas for information or right of reply were ignored, he claimed.
Opening the police case, Squires said any redactions made to information asked for by Pryazhnikov were reasonable.
“There are proper grounds within police investigatory powers that made these redactions necessary.”
The first police witness was the officer who took the woman’s initial complaint. He said the woman was highly distressed and felt threatened, finding billboards near her workplace with a message from a man she had intentionally ignored.
This officer requested a border alert so an officer could question Pryazhnikov on his intentions if he attempted to enter the country. The alert did not constitute a ban from the country, he said.
