The fact the woman deliberately accessed the agency’s computer system to look at the couple’s health records without their permission wasn’t in dispute.
The only issue Judge Lance Rowe had to decide was whether the woman obtained a benefit, or advantage, during the 33 seconds she accessed the files.
For the police, Sergeant Mike Stonyer submitted that the search “came from left field, and was both personal and cruel”.
The woman had used the information as a “moral weapon”.
But the woman’s lawyer, Letitia Smith, submitted that as the search had shown nothing, there could be no benefit.
She didn’t look up the system to invade their privacy and didn’t want anyone to find out about what she’d done, including the couple whom she only told what had happened after they knew their records had been accessed.
Difficult and hostile
The court heard the woman and her ex-partner’s separation was “difficult and hostile”. The Family Court was determining custody arrangements and a protection order had been breached.
The judge noted the woman’s actions followed a report of concern to Oranga Tamariki made by contractors who found her children alone at her ex-partner’s house and a few weeks after the new girlfriend had moved in with her ex-partner.
The woman claimed the new girlfriend had been a heroin user and she wanted to know if this was still the case.
She said she’d accessed the records in a moment of impulsivity, against the background of a hostile and difficult relationship breakdown.
She’d only accessed the medical records after her ex-partner, his mother and his lawyer declined to answer her question about whether the new partner was still an IV drug user, she said.
The woman accessed the girlfriend’s medical records for 12 seconds to look at her lab results.
She spent 21 seconds looking at her former partner’s file, searching his lab results and his next of kin information.
But her search was fruitless, something she admitted in a subsequent email to the new partner.
“Did you actually realise that accessing someone’s records means very little? That there is minimal information gleaned apart from medical tests, of which there were none.
“I was wanting to see if you were still an IV drug user who was caring for my children, and the information gave me no insight.”
She also told the court she’d accessed the next of kin page because she was being “nosey” as she wasn’t able to ask him.
Judge Lance Rowe presided over the judge-alone trial in the Wellington District Court.
But Judge Rowe found that in the context of an acrimonious separation and the concerns she had about her children’s care, accessing her ex-partner’s details did give the woman an advantage.
He ruled the information about next of kin was relevant to the care of their children, as this person may step into the father’s shoes or manage his affairs if he was unable to do so.
Actions were ‘humiliating and shameful’
The woman said she’d searched the woman’s file looking for visits to the alcohol and drug service or liver test results – telltale signs of intravenous drug use.
Meanwhile, in her evidence, the new partner denied ever using intravenous drugs.
She said the woman’s actions had been humiliating and shameful and, as a result, she’d been reluctant to enrol with a doctor or visit the hospital, fearing her records would be accessed.
But under questioning from the woman’s lawyer, the new partner also said she didn’t remember sending the woman an image of the audit, with the words, “You’re going down”.
Accused sought ammunition against her ex’s new partner: judge
That left Judge Rowe to decide if, by accessing the computer system and obtaining no information, the woman had gained a benefit or advantage.
Without knowing what information the woman accessed, the judge said he wasn’t prepared to extend the definition of “benefit” to the absence of information.
But he did find the woman guilty of an alternative charge, that she intended to access the system.
“Her purpose of going into the database is to obtain information that she could use in respect to the ongoing care of her children,” he said, adding she had looked at the records to gather information that would assist her in the context of a hostile dispute.
He said it was clear the woman didn’t approve of the new girlfriend caring for her children and wanted to obtain information or ammunition against the new partner.
After the hearing, the woman was remanded on bail until her next hearing in May.
Smith asked that no convictions be entered because her client would be seeking a discharge without conviction.
A decision on whether to grant permanent name suppression will also be made at the hearing.
Catherine Hutton is an Open Justice reporter, based in Wellington. She has worked as a journalist at the Waikato Times and RNZ. Most recently she was working as a media adviser at the Ministry of Justice.