The licensing authority determined that the private eye had done his job
AI failed to help a man charged with criminal offences win his dispute with a private investigator he had hired to evaluate his case, reported the NZ Herald.
The man, who was given the moniker “James Kelly” by the Private Security Personnel Licensing Authority, had been charged with two unspecified criminal offences in Waikato and Nelson. He claimed that he had hired private investigator “David Brown” (a pseudonym assigned by the licensing authority) to provide what was described as an “honest assessment” of his case, per a statement published in the Herald.
Brown was paid a retainer of $2,000 for 10 hours of investigative work and a report. The private investigator’s initial evaluation indicated that the files lacked key documents; documents amounting to hundreds of pages and CCTV footage wound up being available for review.
Kelly also sought Brown’s advice on complaints he intended to file to the Independent Police Conduct Authority and the Privacy Commissioner – advice which went beyond the terms of their contract. Before Brown finished his report, he had already completed the stipulated 10 hours of work covered by the retainer, per Private Security Personnel Licensing Authority chairwoman Trish McConnell.
“Mr Brown’s evidence is that Mr Kelly was happy with his work and complimented him on his thoroughness until the question of additional funding was broached”, McConnell said in a statement published by the Herald.
Kelly asked AI to list a private investigator’s supposed responsibilities; the tool included the identification of possible suspects, discovery of potentially missed evidence, and the provision of expert testimony. He claimed that on those grounds, Brown’s work was “not fit for purpose”, per a statement published by the Herald.
Kelly’s complaint urged the Private Security Personnel Licensing Authority to conduct a thorough evaluation of Brown’s conduct and issue an order for Brown to refund the retainer to Kelly. Kelly also claimed that Brown was biased because from Kelly’s perspective, the evidence was “overwhelming”, per a statement published by the Herald.
Kelly also sought feedback on available recourses if Brown’s work had supposedly impacted his defence.
McConnell found that Brown had done his job according to the terms of the contract and there was no proof that he had violated the Private Security Personnel and Private Investigators Act 2010. Moreover, there was no evidence of misconduct or unsatisfactory conduct.
“He reviewed the criminal files and wrote a report in which he gave his honest opinion in relation to gaps in the evidence, and the strength and weaknesses of the cases against Mr Kelly”, she said in a statement published by the Herald. “Mr Brown spent more time on assessing the evidence supporting the charges against Mr Kelly and completing his report than was covered by the retainer paid”.
