Above: Harry being treated as a live specimen for students' ghoulish edification, as opposed to being seen as the sensitive, sentient, in-crisis (as he was after they got hold of him) being that he actually was (and still should be). How is this invasive test-of-many performed relentlessly on him throughout the night, in any way related to the rehydration procedure he was admitted to this animal "hospital" for?
_________________________________________
If the 24 other articles in the Killing Harry Kelly Series hasn't yet convinced you of the decidedly educational "specimen"(versus sentient being) mentality, culture and sense of entitlement-to-do-with-as-we-please over your pet while in Massey University's inaptly-named Companion Animal "Hospital", try this size.
Below is an email to some frontwoman in the "Legal and Governance" department who has been delighting in dismissing my legally justified (under the Privacy Act 2020) requests for withheld information, including most notably, 75% of the video footage taken of him (i.e. the remaining six of the so far admitted-to eight recordings they for some reason felt necessary to take of him during an overnight stay for the very standard procedure of rehydration).
To be noted, the two they have released depict (in one case) immense cruelty by the owner of a female hand with long fingers being driven into Harry's tiny skull as his little sedated blind eyes were force open and he was paraded for observation, while the other gives direct rise to suspicion of the timing of topped-up sedation coinciding with my arrival af the clinic and the premeditated intention of "Steffi", the "vet", to present him to me (without any disclosure of any administration of any sedation) as having experienced some irreversible neurological failure (completely unrelated to their treatment, of course . . . except that the last time I saw my dog he was expertly balancing on his rear legs and outstretching his front legs through the ICU cage in a fruitless attempt to seek comfort from the ICU personnel).
Here is my email of today to Frances Mullan, of Massey University's "Legal and Governance" department:
From:
editor@consumeraffairswriter.com <editor@consumeraffairswriter.com>
Sent:
Thursday, 29 January 2026 1:12 pm
To:
'Frances Mullan' <F.Mullan@massey.ac.nz>
Cc:
'Iain McLachlan' <iain@vetcouncil.org.nz>; 'Liam Shields' <liam@vetcouncil.org.nz>; 'Seton Butler' <seton@vetcouncil.org.nz>
Subject: RE: Harry Kelly – Personal Information Access & Institutional Policy Disclosure Request (Privacy Act / OIA)
Ms Mullan:
The link should be maintained in place with all materials accessible, in order to provide ready access (and avoid any possible transfer issues) to other parties investigating, or yet to investigate, the case.
In the meantime, I have further information requirements, as follows.
Request for Descriptive Itemisation Regarding Recorded Materials & Withheld Materials (Official Information Act / Privacy Act)
This inquiry is prompted by the significant discrepancies between the clinical logs provided and the footage released thus far, as well with regard to
my explicit, documented instructions (both verbally and in writing, and on more than one occasion) to Massey’s Companion Animal Hospital’s Practice Manager, Pauline Nijman, that
Harry was not to be used as a training tool.
Please provide the following:
- Digital Metadata and Recording Personnel
(To be answered per individual recording, NOT as a collective overview.)
For the two videos released, I require the original metadata and a detailed identification of the procedure being performed or the situation being observed, along with the
roles, function, and reasons for participation of all personnel involved:
- Timestamps: The precise date and time that each recording commenced and concluded.
- The Recorder: The institutional category of the person recording the footage (e.g., Attending Vet, Resident, Student, Nurse, or Instructor).
- Monitoring: Who was responsible for monitoring Harry’s vital signs
and sedation depth at the specific moment the recording was being taken?
- Descriptive Audit of the Six Withheld Videos
Regarding the six withheld videos, provide an individual descriptive summary for
each separately.
(That is, to be answered per individual recording, NOT as a collective overview.)
- Clinical Activity: What specific clinical manoeuvre or handling is being performed?
- Participants’ Role Identifications: The
Institutional Role, Function, and Specific Reason for Participation for every individual present, visible, or audible in the room.
- Instructional Context: Does the footage depict instructional speech? Is Harry being used to demonstrate a physical trait or response to a group?
- Clinical Justification: What was the medical necessity for the objective of the procedure and the recording thereof, and of the handling depicted, and how does it correspond to the agreed-upon rehydration protocol?
- Correlation of Sedation and Instructional Activity
- Administration Logs: Provide the exact dosage, route, and timestamp for every sedative or analgesic administered within the four-hour window of each of the eight recordings.
- "Top-Up” Sedation: Was any additional sedative administered shortly before or during the arrival of a student group or the commencement of student-led "handling"?
- Apparent Manufactured Decline: Provide the clinical justification for why Harry’s sedation depth increased significantly between the video’d "circling" event and the time of his being presented to me, rendering him semi-comatose.
- Standards of Care
For the following three points/questions are also provided for the assistance of the Veterinary Council of New Zealand (VCNZ) in the detailed investigation of this case (which the Council will shortly be formally asked to perform):
- “Handling" vs "Observation" Distinction: If a student is merely present in the room, that constitutes observation. However, the moment a student lays hands on a sedated patient to perform manoeuvres – such as the severe head-restraint and eye forcing-open seen in the released footage – they are performing a
clinical manoeuvre. Under VCNZ requirements, any manual interaction with a patient for educational purposes is a "teaching procedure".
If it required the patient to be sedated to facilitate that touch, it falls squarely under the requirement for explicit, recorded consent.
- "Clinical Notes" Requirement: The VCNZ Code of Professional Conduct mandates that explicit consent for a student to perform a procedure under sedation "must be recorded in the clinical notes". As
the provided clinical notes for Harry are entirely silent on these manoeuvres and the participation of students,
please identify the specific document or entry that satisfies this professional obligation. Failure to produce this record constitutes a documented violation of the VCNZ Code.
- Definition of a "Procedure": A medical "procedure" is any act performed on a patient for a diagnostic, a therapeutic, or an educational purpose.
- If these manoeuvres were "diagnostic", they should have been performed by a qualified veterinarian and the findings recorded in the logs.
- If they were "educational", they required my explicit, prior consent. The University cannot have it both ways;
if the handling was not recorded as a diagnosis and was not consented to as education, it stands as unauthorised handling of my property.
- Digital Security, Non-Massey Devices, and Ethical Exploitation
Massey has previously claimed that the 75% of unreleased footage cannot be provided because pixelation of the participants' faces is not possible or too difficult.
By your own admission in previous correspondence, these recordings were captured on a
cell phone.
This admission suggests a catastrophic breach of the Privacy Act 2020, the VCNZ Code of Professional Conduct, basic clinical standards and basic, well-accepted digitised information security protocols.
Allowing Harry to be recorded on non-secure, personal devices that are not under the University's direct data control amounts to having
permitted my private property (Harry) to be treated as "content" rather than clinical data,.
Therefore, I require immediate clarification on the following:
- Inventory of Non-Massey Devices:
Were any other recordings (video or photographic) made or permitted of any other time or aspect of Harry’s stay – regardless of whether they were for "official" hospital use, and that are stored on non-Massey devices?
- "Exploitation" Audit: Please state for the record how Massey University monitors and prevents the unauthorised digital exploitation of patients by personnel using personal hardware. If students and staff are permitted to record what they want on their own phones, how does the University track, secure, or delete that data once those individuals leave the premises?
- Chain of Custody and Data Breach:
Who owns the cell phone(s) used to record (a) the released, (b) the still-withheld, and (c) any as-yet to be admitted-to, videos (per further disclosure required above)? How was the security of this personal information (my property) guaranteed once it left the clinic floor, and where is the audit trail confirming that these original files have been deleted from those private devices?
- Breach of Digital Ethics: Does Massey University policy specifically permit the recording of sedated patients on unencrypted, private mobile devices for student study or "observation" notes? If so, please provide the policy document that justifies this practice under the
Privacy Act 2020.
- Disclosure
re Points of Distribution: Have any recordings of Harry been shared, uploaded, or transmitted to any private cloud storage or social messaging platforms (e.g., but not limited to, WhatsApp, iCloud, or Google Photos) by the individuals who recorded them? Are they downloadable from the Massey data storage facility? If so, to whom, and why, and with what specific limitations? And are any such limitations enforced?
Legislative Facta
The following legislative facta are provided for both the edification of Massey executives, clinical staff, and ethics committee members, and also so that, Ms Mullan, you can address your adherence to them in your reply to the email I am sending you today:
- Breach of the Health Information Privacy Code (HIPC): While this primarily applies to humans, the VCNZ and Massey’s own ethics should mirror these standards. Using a cell phone fails the
Storage and Security rule, which requires that information be protected by such security safeguards as it is reasonable in the circumstances to take against loss or unauthorised access.
- Institutional Negligence: Failure to provide professional recording equipment for clinical/educational purposes indicates a failure of the
Consumer Guarantees Act standard of "reasonable care and skill". A professional veterinary hospital utilising a student’s or a staff member's private phone as a recording device constitutes a failure of institutional infrastructure and a breach of professional standards.
- Breach of "Bailment" via Digital Misappropriation: As the "bailee" (the party holding my property), Massey had a duty to protect Harry. By allowing unauthorised digital copies of him to be made on private devices, the University has "misappropriated" the likeness and clinical state of my property for its own purposes.
This is a direct violation of the terms of bailment under which Harry was admitted for medical care.
Legal Framework and the Limitation of General Consent
To be noted: A ny general acknowledgment of Massey’s "teaching status" does not constitute Informed Consent for specific deviations from a clinical treatment plan, nor does it override my explicit instructions that Harry NOT be used as a training tool. It is also to be noted, that on more than one occasion – including in writing and on intake forms (or similar documentation) – I specifically forbade the use of Harry as a teaching tool. One (but not the only) reason for this was my observation of the inexperience and inaccuracy (e.g. inadequate listening skills and compromised note-taking ability) of some of the vet staff I had encountered there, and the “specimen” vs sentient being attitude of other personnel towards Harry and also particularly towards my previous pet (who died at your facility).
Meantime, this request is issued with reference to:
- Consumer Guarantees Act 1993: Regarding the delivery of services as per the agreed-upon clinical consent and the requirement of “reasonable care and skill”.
- Animal Welfare Act 1999: Regarding the ethical justification for sedation and the avoidance of unnecessary distress.
- VCNZ Code of Professional Conduct: Regarding the requirement for
explicit consent for student-led procedures under sedation.
- Property Law (Bailment):
Regarding the unauthorised use of private property for institutional gain.
Breach of Duty and Strict Liability
- Deviation from Terms: A bailee is bound by the terms of the bailment, whether express or implied.
If a bailee uses a chattel in a way not authorised by the owner, they are liable for any loss or damage.
- Conversion:
Using bailed property for personal or institutional gain without permission is typically considered "conversion" – a tort that occurs when a bailee acts in a manner inconsistent with the owner's title.
As I did not authorise the sedation of Harry – and had specifically forbidden his use as a 'training tool' – any administration of sedatives constitutes a fundamental deviation from the terms of bailment. Under the principles of strict liability, Massey is liable for the unauthorised “use”' of my property and the subsequent clinical decline that occurred while the terms of our agreement were being breached.
I await your timely provision of the required information, with the appropriately detailed response to all the questions laid out herein.
Sincerely
Jordan Kelly
NOTE TO THE READER:
Quite aside from all the other atrocities performed upon Harry (not the least of which was massively overdosing with a contraindicated sedative and then presenting him to me under a false, unrelated and "terminal" diagnosis and coercing me to agree to the termination of his life, by sedating Harry in the first instance without my consent, if to facilitate teaching and student observation, Massey and its staff have (under the legislation related to Bailment) essentially "converted" my property to their own use (i.e. institutional education).
In law, "Conversion" is a serious offense. It means that Massey treated my property (Harry) as if it/he were theirs to do with as they pleased.
I encourage every pet owner who has, or who might find their pet referred to, the Massey University "Companion Animal Hospital", to be aware of what goes on behind those closed doors you are rarely allowed to go through, and the fact that you have cast-in-stone legal rights over what DOES go on behind them, despite both the Hospital's management and its veterinary staff's propensity to have you believe otherwise.
YOUR PET IS **NOT** MASSEY'S PROPERTY TO DO WITH AS THEY PLEASE.
YOU PAY THROUGH THE NOSE FOR HIS OR HER CARE.
NOT
TO HAVE HIM OR HER USED AND ABUSED AS A DISPOSABLE TRAINING AID.
