A member of the police media team informed a documentary film crew about the death of Tom Phillips at least one hour before his family was notified, according to information revealed by RNZ.
Details of the Notification
Phillips died following a shootout with police in September 2025 after officers responded to reports of a burglary. Police have since apologized to the family in person, describing the decision to inform the documentary crew first as “ill-advised.” Acting Deputy Commissioner Jill Rogers stated she only became aware of the timing discrepancy as a result of an Official Information Act (OIA) request.
The police director of media and strategic communications sent a text message to the CEO of the documentary production company at approximately 6:15 am, alerting them to the “critical incident.” The Phillips family was not informed until after 7:30 am, and the mother of his children was not notified until after 8:00 am. A police media statement regarding a “serious incident in Western Waikato” was published online at 7:15 am, later confirming Phillips’ death.
Extensive Access Agreement
The documentary production company, NHNZ Worldwide in partnership with London-based Grain Media Ltd, signed a detailed access agreement with police in March 2025. This agreement granted filmmakers opportunities to view evidence, attend briefings, and record police operations. In return, police retained significant control over the project, including the right to preview and edit broadcasts, and even terminate filming access.
The agreement stipulated that the filmmakers could not use footage or images of the children without explicit permission from both their legal guardian and the police, and was subject to existing Family Court suppression orders. The documentary was initially slated for broadcast in 2027, pending court proceedings.
Frequently Asked Questions
What prompted the police to inform the documentary crew?
According to Acting Deputy Commissioner Jill Rogers, the staff member who sent the text message was the main point of contact for the documentary crew and did not act with malicious intent. The notification was made as part of the established working relationship between the police and the production company.
Was the police decision to inform the crew standard procedure?
Acting Deputy Commissioner Rogers stated that informing the documentary crew before the family was “very regrettable and is not the way police usually handle such matters,” and that family are “wherever possible, always advised first.”
What control did the police have over the documentary’s content?
The access agreement granted police the right to preview any broadcast, require edits or removals for reasons including security and privacy, and hold veto power over replays or altered versions of the documentary. They also retained the right to terminate filming access at any time.
Given the sensitive nature of this case and the established access agreement, what steps might police take to review and potentially revise protocols regarding communication with media during active investigations?
