FEBRUARY 14th UPDATE:
THE URGENCY OF MASSEY BEING FORCED TO RELEASE THESE VIDEOS IS NOW EXTREME, FOLLOWING DISCOVERIES LAST WEEK THAT HARRY HAD HAD HIS LIFE-ESSENTIAL IV REHYDRATING FLUIDS INTENTIONALLY DISCONNECTED FOR HIS APPARENT TRANSITION FROM "PATIENT" STATUS TO THAT OF "STUDENT TEST SUBJECT" FOR A RAFT OF EXPERIMENTS AND PROCEDURES IN HIS BLIND, CATASTROPHICALLY OVERDOSED STATE, WHICH WERE FILMED FOR USE AS A SERIES OF STUDENT TRAINING VIDEOS.
READ THE EXTENSIVE DETAIL
HERE.
Context for Readers:
The following is a formal
URGENT
complaint lodged with the Office of the Privacy Commissioner.
It follows a series of calculated manoeuvres by Massey University’s Legal and Governance department to restrict access to clinical video records of my dog, Harry, during his period of "care" in their veterinary "hospital's" ICU and resultant death.
Massey has "overwritten" my requested CCTV footage from the ICU, and now continues to withhold six of the eight clinical documentation videos, attempting to force an on-site "viewing" at Massey itself, rather than providing the digital files required for a forensic audit. This is a transparent tactic to obfuscate the truth and shield clinical personnel and the matter at large, from independent expert scrutiny.
This matter is designated as
URGENT
due to the high risk of further evidence destruction, following the university's admission that it has already overwritten primary visual evidence.
URGENT OPEN LETTER: To the Office of the Privacy Commissioner
SUBJECT: *URGENT*
FORMAL COMPLAINT: Breach of IPP 6 and Section 58 of the Privacy Act 2020 by Massey University
Dear Commissioner,
I am writing to formally lodge an
URGENT complaint against Massey University’s Companion Animal Hospital regarding their refusal to provide digital access to clinical records - specifically six (6) video recordings.
1. The Statutory Breach: Preferred Manner of Access
Under
Information Privacy Principle 6 (IPP 6) of the
Privacy Act 2020, I have a fundamental right to access my personal information held by an agency.
I draw your attention to
Section 58 (the way in which information is made available), specifically
Section 58(1), which mandates:
“If information is to be made available in response to a request . . . the agency must make that information available in the way preferred by the individual.”
My
preferred manner of access is the provision of
digital copies of the entire eight (8) clinical videos Massey acknowledges possessing, not only the two videos they advise they will provide.
This is not merely a preference of convenience; it is the
only feasible and fit-for-purpose method of access.
A digital copy allows for the independent, expert forensic evaluation that is essential to this case. Any other format - such as a supervised on-site viewing (their current statement of restriction to my access of these videos) - is functionally useless for the purpose of a clinical audit i.e. the express reason for my request (I am hardly champing at the bit to view the detail of the actions leading up to the ending of the life of my beloved dog).
2. Failure to Meet Statutory Exceptions
Section 58(2) provides only three narrow exceptions for refusing a preferred method of access. Massey’s claim of "protecting the privacy of others" fails these tests.
As a major University, performing digital redactions (pixelation) is a basic administrative task. It does not "impair efficient administration".
Consequently, Massey has no statutory basis to refuse the digital release of these records.
3. The CCTV "Loss" and the Forensic Necessity of ICU Videos
Massey University has claimed that they have
overwritten the requested CCTV footage from the ICU (despite my having lodged my request for it in advance of the claimed "28-day holding window".
Because the university has already failed to preserve that primary record, the eight clinical videos now represent the only objective evidence of Harry’s final 15 hours.
Without these digital files, I am prevented from having independent experts rewind and freeze-frame the footage to investigate:
- The Cause of Physical Trauma: Identifying the event that led to the
visible dark, reddish-brown staining (epistaxis/nosebleed) around Harry’s muzzle.
- Clinical Neglect: Verifying hydration and nutrition delivery in a kidney-compromised patient that had been sedated with pharmaceuticals contraindicated for kidney-compromised patients.
- General Maltreatment: Investigating other key aspects of his treatment or maltreatment within the facility that led to the substantial and verifiable inconsistencies in the Massey vet's narrative surrounding his catastrophic decline.
Again, the
**extreme urgency of this intervention**
is underscored by Massey University’s claim that they have overwritten the only other source of visual evidence i.e. the requested CCTV footage from the ICU.
4. Secondary Victimisation
Requiring my physical presence at Massey for a "controlled viewing" is a form of
secondary victimisation.
It is emotionally manipulative and psychologically untenable to force a victim of
Moral Injury to return to the site where they were coerced - under false pretences - into participating in their own pet's termination.
5. Demand for Intervention
I request that the Office of the Privacy Commissioner enforce the
statutory duty of Massey University to:
- Release all six (6) withheld video files in a redacted digital format immediately.
- Issue an
URGENT Preservation Order for all clinical and digital data associated with this case.
Yours sincerely,
Jordan Kelly (Ms)
