From: editor@consumeraffairswriter.com <editor@consumeraffairswriter.com>
Sent: Tuesday, 27 January 2026 11:14 am
To: editor@consumeraffairswriter.com
Subject: Formal Complaint - Interference with Privacy (Principle 6) - Massey University - Refusal to Provide Complete Video Records
Dear Commissioner:
- Background
This complaint concerns Massey University’s persistent refusal to provide the full digital record of eight (8) videos taken of my dog, Harry, while he was a patient in the University's 'Companion Animal Hospital' on the night of November 30 and the morning and afternoon of December 1, 2025.
Following a formal request for these records, the university released only two (2) videos on the night of November 30, 2025. After weeks of delay, they claimed "privacy concerns" for third parties as the basis for withholding the remaining 75% of the footage.
- Evidence of Cruel Handling and Unexplained Physical Trauma
Upon reviewing the two released videos – specifically the recording titled
“testing of vestibulo-ocular reflexes” – I have witnessed overtly cruel and unnecessary manhandling of a small, blind, distressed patient. The footage documents a vice-like grip, with a strong hand (with woman’s fingernails) driving hard into Harry’s tiny scalp as his eyes are forced open for the camera and he is moved around, apparently on display.
Furthermore, detailed observation of "goodbye photos" – taken a few minutes before the lethal injection – reveals blood-coloured skin staining under the fur on Harry’s muzzle. This likely indicates that Harry had been bleeding from the nose – an occurrence entirely unrelated to his primary reason for admission (rehydration) and one that is absent from the clinical records provided.
The withholding of the remaining six videos prevents a necessary investigation into when and how this bleeding and the associated physical distress occurred.
- Objective Contradiction of the Clinical Record
The second video provided – titled
“circling” – documents Harry moving easily and at speed (normal baseline behaviour for him, as a blind dog with a head tilt, when under stress-induced disoritentation).
This physical vitality stands in direct, objective contradiction to the contemporaneous clinical notes and the Hospital's recommendation for euthanasia, which characterised Harry as being in a supposedly rapidly progressing, non-recoverable vegetative state.
I contend that the university is withholding the balance of the footage because it likely contains further visual proof that the clinical justifications provided for the termination of Harry’s life were inaccurate.
- Inadequacy of the "Privacy" Justification
Massey University is a premier, highly resourced teaching institution. The technology required to pixelate or blur the faces of third parties is standard and readily available.
Their refusal to utilise this technology to fulfil a Principle 6 request – while instead offering "supervised viewing" (which prevents independent forensic analysis) – constitutes a wilful obstruction of my right to access the full record.
- Secondary Victimization and Constructive Denial of Access
The University’s proposal of on-site, in-person-only, supervised viewing is inherently coercive and constitutes a profound act of secondary victimisation.
It would require me to return to the literal scene of the crime – the site where I was deceived and actively coerced into consenting to the unnecessary termination of Harry’s life (over whom I was immensely protective and with whom it was well-known that I was extremely closely bonded as my only “family” member).
On that day, I was made to physically restrain my own dog for the lethal injection under the false clinical pretence that his struggle was merely a "last hurrah” (in the directly quoted words of the Massey vet), when detailed posthumous analysis of the records has subsequently revealed that he was fighting through a haze of undisclosed heavy sedation to respond to me.
To compel a deeply traumatised and grieving owner to return to the environment of such a traumatic and ethically compromised event in order to exercise a basic right to information is both cruel and untenable.
Furthermore, as neither I nor the required independent experts reside in proximity to Palmerston North, this condition represents an insurmountable logistical barrier. This in-person, on-site requirement serves as a
constructive denial of access and a direct obstruction of the primary reason for my request: to allow for independent, expert forensic analysis of the records in the pursuit of justice.
Conclusion
I am requesting that the Privacy Commissioner compel Massey University to release the remaining six videos in their original digital format, with third-party faces pixelated (and
NOT “clipping or editing”) as required, along with the original metadata for all eight recordings.
The withholding of these records appears to be a strategic move to avoid accountability for documented mistreatment and clinical misrepresentation.
Yours Sincerely
Jordan Kelly
9 Coradine Street
Masterton 5810
Ph: 06 657 0170
