Alexander Pryazhnikov wins privacy battle against police after hiring billboards to ask a woman for a date

He also complained to police who contacted the company and put up a border alert for Pryazhnikov, who lived in Australia, so police could speak to him if he entered the country.

Phantom Billstickers said Pryazhnikov had been contacted by the police and also copied his employer in his correspondence, creating problems at his workplace in Sydney.

Pryazhnikov then requested information from the police under the Privacy Act for “any report, complaint or enquiry, verbal or written” made to the police about the billboard incident so that he could take legal action against the ‘billboard company.

However, police initially refused his application before releasing a heavily redacted version of the file, although not before contacting Immigration NZ, who screened him at the border.

Unhappy with the way the police handled his request for information, Pryazhnikov filed a claim with the Human Rights Review Tribunal which this week ruled in his favor and ordered the police to pay him $17,500 in compensation

In his statements to the court, Pryazhnikov said the billboards were a “romantic gesture designed to impress” the woman, with whom he had had a brief relationship.

The court held a hearing last year to hear Pryazhnikov’s claim that police had interfered with his privacy by failing to tell him information about their investigation into the billboard incident and the woman’s subsequent complaint to which he had been trying to seduce.

His application was originally submitted as an OIA, but was rejected because he was not a New Zealand citizen. Pryazhnikov resubmitted the same request under the Privacy Act, which states that anyone can request information that an agency or company has about them.

However, the police completely rejected his request for information in July 2018, prompting a complaint to the Privacy Commissioner.

His rejection came three days after he was prevented from boarding an international flight from Sydney to Auckland to meet a colleague after Immigration NZ became concerned he was hoping to meet the woman. This was despite Pryazhnikov advising police ahead of time that he would be traveling to New Zealand to meet a colleague.

After police rejected Pryazhnikov’s request for information, he lodged a complaint with the Privacy Commissioner, prompting police to release a heavily redacted version of the case summary report.

However, unhappy with this outcome, Pryazhnikov reiterated his plea and the police added a sentence to his initial release.

Pryazhnikov then claimed in court that police had failed to release his information, improperly disclosed it to other parties and arrived late. He accused the police of acting in bad faith and deliberately delayed his release of information in the hope that he would be refused entry to New Zealand.

Instead, police said they had not breached Pryazhnikov’s privacy and were only entitled to release a redacted version of the case summary report in an ongoing investigation.

Police also had notebook entries, a family damage investigation report, as well as emails between Pryazhnikov and the woman, emails between police and Immigration NZ and emails between police and Phantom Billstickers.

But the police refused to hand them over to Pryazhnikov and refused to comply with his request, claiming that the investigation was still ongoing as of July 30, 2018.

In its ruling, the court said that at that date the police had nothing further to investigate and the case was no longer active. Pryazhnikov was never charged with any crime after the police investigation.

“Accordingly, there was no active investigation, which in itself could justify the retention of Mr. Pryazhnikov’s personal information,” his decision said.

A police witness told the court that releasing information about border alerts could alert people to whom the police wanted to speak and that whistleblowers should be able to give statements freely without fear of information being released.

“We accept that disclosure of the operational methods used by the police may negate their effectiveness. However, we do not accept that such concerns arise in this case and it is important that the police do not apply a blanket approach,” the court said in response

“The police did not have the right to withhold all of Mr. Pryazhnikov’s mixed information and only had the right to withhold certain limited information in accordance with the maintenance of the retention ground of the law. Therefore, the police had no adequate basis to reject Mr. Pryazhnikov’s request in its entirety. In doing so, he interfered with his privacy.”

The court found that Pryazhnikov had a right to understand what the complaint against him was and to know what the police told Immigration NZ and Phantom Billstickers, because without it he could not challenge its accuracy.

“Mr Pryazhnikov was very stressed and anxious not to know the full nature of the complaint. After he was prevented from boarding his flight from Sydney Airport, he became genuinely fearful that a false allegation had been made of rape or other serious sexual crimes,” the court ruling said.

“Mr Pryazhnikov was hampered in his attempts to defend himself against any allegations of sexual assault, to restore his reputation, save his job and resolve and restore his immigration status by not knowing what personal information the police had about him

“Because she was unable to access her personal information, she was hindered in her ability to respond to these potential situations or request that her personal information be corrected.”

The court ruled that the police had interfered with Pryazhnikov’s privacy and ordered that the documents he requested be provided to him, albeit with certain redactions to protect the whistleblower.

The court also ordered the police to pay Pryazhnikov $17,500 for humiliation, loss of dignity and injury to feelings, as well as $1,500 in legal costs.

Pryazhnikov told NZME he was generally happy with the sentence and the compensation he was awarded, but noted the court could not deal with matters of police conduct and was considering further legal action.

“This ruling is just about getting access to the documents, really,” he said.

“We also want our government agencies to deal with things quickly.”

Pryazhnikov said it was frustrating that he had had to take matters to court, rather than the police admitting they had made a mistake.

“Really, what I want is an apology from them.”

Pryazhnikov said that ultimately nothing came of the police investigation, but it had far-reaching consequences for him regarding Phantom Billstickers who told his workplace about the police complaint and the problems with Immigration NZ.

“They (the police) did nothing over the years,” he said.

“But, I still walked around Wellington like I had a red dot on my forehead.”

The ruling is the third issued by the court this year where the police have been found to have interfered with someone’s privacy.

In one case, they were required to pay $50,000 to a sexual assault whistleblower after spending years trying to find out why their alleged attacker was never charged. In another case, police withheld information that a Porsche driver claimed could have helped him defend the charges against him in court.

Police have approached for comment.

A spokesman for Phantom Billstickers said it did not want to comment on the court’s decision.

Jeremy Wilkinson is an Open Justice journalist based in Manawatū who covers the courts and justice issues with an interest in the courts. He has been a journalist for almost a decade and has been with NZME since 2022.