Corrections intercepted most of them but five slipped through, including a stick figure drawing deemed so “pernicious” by Wellington District Court Judge Jan Kelly that it constituted a death threat.
In total the harassment went on for almost a decade.
While Mitchell was remanded in custody in 2014, she tried to secure electronically monitored bail to an address in Auckland, which was ultimately denied.
Police requested a psychologist’s report about Mitchell from Corrections so they could prepare their own report about her risk to the community if she was bailed.
Corrections did not give police the entire report but provided sections deemed relevant.
This disclosure forms the basis of Mitchell’s case before the Human Rights Review Tribunal where she claims four staff from Corrections breached her privacy by releasing the report.
“I don’t believe due care was taken by Corrections when they released the documents,” Mitchell told the tribunal at a hearing in Wellington today.
“This is more than a routine breach of the Privacy Act.”
Mitchell said the release of the report contributed to her not being released from prison, was used inappropriately in her trial, and made her feel devalued as a citizen of New Zealand.
“The psychologist definitely mislead me during the interview. There’s no way I would agree to give anything to the New Zealand Police.”
Part of Mitchell’s claim also centres on the idea the psychologist who wrote her report was contracted by Corrections - as opposed to being a salaried employee.
Because of this, Mitchell says, he didn’t have the authority to share information to a third party such as police, and doing so was a breach of the Health Information Privacy Code.
Counsel Victoria Squires told the tribunal Corrections did not deny disclosing Mitchell’s psychological report nor 47 pages of a prisoner complaint form to police.
“Both these disclosures occurred during criminal procedures being brought against Mitchell,” Squires said.
“While Mitchell experienced upset it doesn’t meet the threshold to establish interference with privacy.”
Squires went on to read an excerpt of Judge Christopher Tuohy’s decision declining Mitchell’s application for electronically monitored bail in 2014.
In it he stated he’d dealt with Mitchell on numerous occasions and while he had read the psychologist’s report before coming into court he didn’t need to rely on it.
Instead, he said the nature of Mitchell’s offending, the risk of her reoffending, and the weight of evidence against her made it impossible to grant her bail.
Squires also challenged Mitchell’s claims that she had lost friends, family and even pets as a result of the alleged privacy breach.
Under questioning, Mitchell said she had not provided the tribunal any evidence of this.
Squires told the tribunal Corrections knowingly disclosed Mitchell’s personal information but did so in compliance with the Privacy Act and the Health Information Privacy Code.
Mitchell said she had rescinded her consent to the report writer after being interviewed so it should never have been used.
“I was told by the report writer that it wouldn’t be used - but it’s been used in a bail hearing, a court hearing and by police,” she said.
“This report writer didn’t know what he was doing when he released the information.”
Mitchell is suing Corrections for $10,000 for emotional harm and damages arising from the release of her personal information.
The hearing continues tomorrow.
