Will This Badly Behaving Institution Preserve the Truth & Allow It to Be Released In Full? Not So Far. Not By A Long Shot.

This article is a critical component of a broader investigative series documenting the clinical and ethical failures surrounding the death of Harry Kelly (my treasured, beloved) at Massey University’s Companion Animal Hospital.

This statutory log of formal requests lodged by me, Harry's deeply grieving "mamma" (who is determined to honour his memory with the facts), represents a formal effort to extract the truth from an institution that has, to date, met my search for answers with bureaucratic evasion.

To understand the gravity of the injustice being investigated—from the clinical "false positive" nature (at its most charitable description) of the justification used to coerce me into signing "euthanasia" papers, to the subsequent breakdown in the custodial chain of his body and his ashes—please refer to the [LINK TO IT WAS NOT 'EUTHANASIA' ARTICLE].

In New Zealand, the Official Information Act (OIA) and the Privacy Act 2020 are the primary statutory mechanisms for institutional transparency. They ensure that public entities like Massey University remain accountable to the individuals they serve.

Below is the record of the formal requests currently served upon the Vice-Chancellor, the Governance Office, and the Privacy Officer. These demands seek to resolve the profound discrepancies in Harry’s clinical history and the truth behind the push for his (later found to be unnecessary life termination) and to hold the University accountable for the outsourced relationships that resulted in the catastrophic failure of custodial integrity regarding Harry's remains.

The Request Log: Seeking Accountability for Harry Kelly

Request 1: The Integrity of Clinical Records & Comprehensive Metadata

• Legal Basis: Privacy Act 2020 (Principle 6).

• The Demand:  A full digital export of all clinical notes, nursing logs, and communication archives. Crucially, this includes the digital metadata and audit logs for every entry. This data is required to establish the exact dosages and precise timestamps for all pharmaceuticals administered—metadata that will determine whether the "neurological state" used to justify the recommendation for euthanasia was a clinical reality or a transient sedative effect from the substantial pharmaceuticals administered (without consent and without disclosure) that same day.

• Status: PENDING. Despite a written commitment from Hospital Management on January 6 to provide these records "by the end of the week," the University has since retracted that promise, shunting the request to the central Privacy Office. As of this publication, the University continues to withhold the data that would clarify Harry's final neurological baseline.

Request 2: ICU & Consulting Room CCTV (Ref. 02/2026)

• Legal Basis:  Privacy Act 2020 / OIA 1982.

• The Specific Demand:  The immediate preservation and release of all ICU ward footage from November 30 to December 1, 2025.

• The preservation of Consulting Room footage from the afternoon of December 1. This evidence is vital to document the patient’s physical motor function and his strength in responding to his owner in the moments before the attending clinician insisted the patient's condition was irredeemable.

Status:   Refused. Claimed "Overwritten".

ICU Footage & Videos:

Acknowledged that EIGHT videos exist of Harry. However, ONLY TWO are to be released to me. Regarding the other SIX, I am allowed only a one-time, controlled environment viewing of these. That is, to be clear, the viewing of this footage that represents 75 percent of the available video footage, must be conducted at the Companion Animal Hospital itself, or not at all.

And as above, all ICU and consulting room footage has been "overwritten".

Request 3: OIA on Transfer Protocols & Vendor Payments

• Legal Basis: Official Information Act 1982.

• The Demand: Disclosure of Standard Operating Procedures (SOPs) governing the transfer of deceased remains and a financial audit of all payments made by the University to the external provider, NZ Pet Cremate Ltd trading as Pet Farewells (the pet cremation company who first claimed to have been told "I didn't want Harry back" and called me for a "disposal fee", then - upon my horrified reaction - suddenly "found" his ashes  SEE THE FULL STORY HERE), and all entities of which Gavin or Lyn Shepherd are directors or shareholders or similarly associated, over the preceding 24 months. This request seeks to uncover the systemic failures that allowed a patient's remains and personal property to be handled in such a profoundly irresponsible manner. (NB: Having despatched Harry's body to this operator and upon my subsequent advice of this distressing debacle, Massey advised "no responsibility" and nil interest in the matter.)

• The Forensic Record:

• Request Served: Friday,, December 26, 2025.
• 
  
• Read Receipt Confirmed: Monday, 5 Jan 2026, 7:52 AM (The University’s first business hour of the year), but it took Massey's Legal & Governance Department until January 16 to formally acknowledge the request, with the "20 working day" clock only set going at that belated stage, and with two public holidays included to push the advised timeframe out still further.

(NB: It should be noted that the information i.e. regarding Deceased Patient Transfer Protocols should  not be something anyone at any "international standard" veterinary institution has to go deep-diving to dig out. If they do, that’s a major red flag issue for a major government-funded teaching hospital producing New Zealand's next generation of veterinarians.)

_____________________________________________________

From: editor@consumeraffairswriter.com <editor@consumeraffairswriter.com> 
Sent: Thursday, 15 January 2026 7:48 pm
To: 'Privacy' <Privacy@massey.ac.nz>
Cc: 'Iain McLachlan' <iain@vetcouncil.org.nz>; 'Liam Shields' <liam@vetcouncil.org.nz>; 'Seton Butler' <seton@vetcouncil.org.nz>
Subject: RE: Privacy Request: Kelly 01 2026 - Your Restriction of My Access to Video Records

Dear Ms Mullan

I am sending this initial response prior to having had the opportunity to review the materials in the data depository to which you have sent me a link. This email deals specifically with your ongoing refusal to provide digital access to 75% of the video records you hold of Harry.

Regarding the six videos you are currently withholding: I do not accept being restricted to a one-time, on-site, "controlled environment" viewing as a valid form of access.

I consider restricting me to such a one-time, on-site, "controlled environment" viewing, to be a calculated manoeuvre that is emotionally and psychologically manipulative, cunning, and totally unacceptable.

It is intended to prevent independent forensic scrutiny and to shield your clinical decisions and actions from outside oversight.

The Legal Breach (Privacy Act Section 58)

According to Section 58 of the Privacy Act 2020, if an individual has a right to access information, the agency must provide that information in the manner preferred by the individual (e.g. as a digital copy), unless doing so would:

• Prejudice the interests of others;
• Be contrary to a legal duty; or
• Impair "efficient administration”.

Your "privacy" excuse is a calculated manoeuvre to avoid your statutory duty. As a major University with significant technical resources, performing standard digital redactions (pixelation) – which would therefore avoid any risk of “prejudicing the interests of others” – is a basic administrative task and does not constitute an "unreasonable" burden or "impair efficient administration".
 
Refusing to provide the files in my preferred digital format simply to prevent me from having a copy, is a breach of the Act.

Calculated Obstruction of Expert Scrutiny

Restricting me to a one-time, on-site, "controlled environment" viewing makes a professional clinical audit logistically impossible.

I reserve my right to seek a second, independent expert opinion – a right I was actively denied while Harry was alive, and a move that forced me into an irreversible decision under duress.

By limiting my access to the information in question to strictly that which can be performed at your own premises, you are ensuring no outside expert can review the footage, shielding your staff from forensic scrutiny.

Secondary Victimisation and Coercion

I consider restricting me to a one-time, on-site, "controlled environment" viewing to be emotionally and psychologically manipulative and cunning.

It is a form of secondary victimisation, requiring me to immerse myself in the very environment in which I was coerced – under what the facts clearly indicate were false pretences – into allowing your staff to terminate my dog's life.

The Necessity of Forensic Review

Restricting me to a one-time, on-site, "controlled environment" viewing is useless for a clinical investigation.

Both I and independent experts require digital copies to rewind, freeze-frame, and properly examine the clinical interventions during the less than 24 hours Harry spent in your “care” – and during which his condition changed in the most extreme manner imaginable (based, as I now know) on unnecessary and owner-unauthorised pharmaceutical intervention.

This restriction is a transparent tactic to obfuscate the truth.

Continuity of Access to the Data Depository

Regarding the materials you have already provided via a link: please ensure this link remains live with the records fully accessible until such time as I formally advise you – in writing – that my investigation, clinical audits, and all related legal or regulatory proceedings are concluded.

Any premature termination of access will be viewed as a further act of obstruction.

Meantime, I require the redacted digital files of all eight videos. I look forward to receiving them by Friday, January 23, 2026.

In the meantime, please ensure your future correspondences address me more formally as Ms Kelly. Anyone who has any part in the coercion of a pet’s owner related to the pre-meditated clinical killing of that pet under false pretences – or the after-the-fact cover-up thereof – is not a party with whom I consider myself to be on first name terms.

Yours Sincerely
Jordan Kelly (Ms)

From: Privacy <Privacy@massey.ac.nz> 
Sent: Wednesday, 14 January 2026 11:27 am
To: editor@consumeraffairswriter.com
Cc: Privacy <Privacy@massey.ac.nz>
Subject: Privacy Request: Kelly 01 2026

Kia ora, Jordan

Please see attached the university’s response to your privacy request. Due to the size of the files being supplied our letter includes a link for you to click to download/access the material covered in our response.

Kind regards

Governance and Assurance Office

_______________________________

Kia ora, Jordan

We acknowledge receipt of your Official Information Act request. The reference number for your request is 95/2025.

If we have any questions or need to seek clarification on any part of your request, we will be in touch.

Otherwise, we will seek to respond to your request as soon as practicable and no later than 20 working days after the date your request was received (by 13 February 2026).

The response date shown takes into account:

1. Summer holidays (25 December to 15 January)
2. Waitangi Day (6 February 2026)

If we are unable to respond to your request by then, we will notify you of an extension of this timeframe.

Kind regards

Governance and Assurance Office

Please note: The content of this email and any attachment is confidential and should be read by the intended recipient only. If you are not the intended recipient, please notify the sender immediately and delete the content from your system. You should not read, copy, or distribute the message. Thank you.

From: editor@consumeraffairswriter.com <editor@consumeraffairswriter.com> 
Sent: Friday, 26 December 2025 6:08 pm
To: OIA Requests <oia@massey.ac.nz>
Cc: editor@consumeraffairswriter.com
Subject: Official Information Act 1982 Request: CAH Deceased Patient Transfer Protocols and Vendor Payments

 
   To the Registrar / Governance and Assurance Team:

As a long-term client of the Companion Animal Hospital (CAH), I request the following information under the Official Information Act 1982.
 
Please acknowledge receipt of this request by return email.

1. Deceased Animal Transfer Protocols (Standard Operating Procedures)
    
   Please provide a copy of the current Standard Operating Procedure (SOP), policy document, or internal staff guidelines that govern the release, transfer, and final disposition of deceased animals from the CAH to any external provider.

   Specifically, I request the sections of these documents that detail:

• The specific verification protocol required before an animal’s remains/ashes are designated as "Not for Return to Owner". I require the SOP that dictates how staff must confirm and document an owner's explicit instruction to waive their right to/interest in the remains;

• The procedure for recording and transmitting requests for ancillary services or memorials (e.g., paw prints, fur clippings, or "return of ashes" mementos) and how these instructions are communicated to the external provider or to trigger their contact with the owner;

• The procedure for recording and transmitting owner instructions to external providers, specifically how "Return of Remains" vs. "Non-Return" instructions are flagged in the system to prevent unauthorised disposal;

• The required documentation to be completed prior to uplift (e.g., Transfer of Custody forms, identifying tags, or service instruction sheets) to ensure the provider knows exactly which service is required, including the mandatory sign-off required for any "No Return" designation;

• The protocols for verifying that an external provider is approved or authorised to handle deceased patients, covering ALL disposition types including (but that might not be limited to):
  
  
• Individual Cremation (return of ashes);
• Mass Disposal / Communal Cremation / Rendering;
• Clinical or Biological Waste Disposal.

2. Vendor Payments & Financial Relationship 
   
Please provide the total dollar amount of invoices paid by Massey University over the past 24 months to the following entities for services of any kind (including, but not limited to, cremation, biological waste disposal, cadaver transport, or rendering services):

• The entity trading as "Pet Farewells";
• Gavin Shepherd and/or Lyn Shepherd (as individuals or sole traders);
• Any limited liability company of which Gavin Shepherd or Lyn Shepherd is/are listed as a Director or Shareholder.
  
  

Additionally, please provide the total dollar amount paid to:

• Any other external entity engaged by the CAH to provide services related to the uplift, collection, transportation, management, storage, cremation, or final disposition of:
  
  
• Deceased companion animals;
• Post-mortem (necropsy) subjects;
• Animal carcasses or biological/clinical waste.
  
  

Note:  If specific dollar amounts are withheld for commercial reasons, I strictly request confirmation of the existence of the vendor relationship and the general nature of the services provided.

Yours sincerely

Jordan Kelly