Security guard found guilty of sending photo of corpse while on duty at Auckland medical school

A medical school security guard has been fined and censured for sending photographs of corpses, the layout of the vice-chancellor’s residence and other sensitive information.

In a hearing before the Private Security Personnel Licensing Authority, security technician Avishek Maharaj faced allegations of sending photos of cadavers from Auckland University Medical School, the vice-chancellor’s residential address and room layout, and taking a woman he considered his girlfriend into secured areas of the campus after hours.

Maharaj denied sending photos of corpses but accepted other matters.

A Complaints, Investigation and Prosecution Unit (CIPU) investigation found the alleged incidents did occur.

Other aspects of the complaint were dismissed.

The complainant said Maharaj had sent her photographs of a cadaver in an unzipped body bag using a messaging function where it was only available to view for a short time before being automatically deleted.

She provided copies of text messages sent before and after photographs were received, which showed she found the images disturbing.

Maharaj said as no copies of photographs were provided, it could not be proven that he sent them.

He said he was unfamiliar with the technology.

P.A. McConnell found his explanation to be not credible coming from a security technician with the level of experience and seniority he claimed to have.

McConnell found that when Maharaj was previously interviewed by his employer he had accepted he sent photographs of at least one cadaver from the medical school to the complainant.

Maharaj said he wanted to be able to keep his certificate so he could continue to work in security.

But McConnell had seen little remorse from him.

“Throughout the process he has largely blamed the complainant for his breaches and justified his actions by saying she was barraging him with text messages while he was working and wanting to know what he was doing - but he provided no proof.

“Even if the complainant was constantly texting him there are much better ways of dealing with personal messages during working hours than sending images and information that breached the university and his employer’s protocols and security,” McConnell said.

Maharaj acknowledged his behaviour was unacceptable and amounted to unsatisfactory conduct but not necessarily misconduct.

The woman was the only person to whom he disclosed sensitive security information and at the time they were in a close relationship.

He considered the complainant to be his girlfriend and trusted her not to share the information he sent.

Maharaj was found guilty of misconduct as a result of serious breaches of security and privacy protocols and requirements of the university and his employer.

The penalty for his misconduct was a reprimand and a fine of $600.

Maharaj had voluntarily stood down from his job around the time the complaint was filed.

He was also banned from working at the university and received a final warning from his employer.