Mazu was stopped by a conservation officer and asked to produce any fish in her possession. She showed the conservation officer the fish and was issued a ticket for catching and retaining more than her daily quota. Mazu disputed the ticket and sometime later the court proceeding was stayed.

Mazu believed the conservation officer had abused his power, improperly detained her, breached the Conservation Officer Service Code of Conduct and committed perjury. She requested an investigation by the Conservation Officer Service. After that, believing the authority had not addressed all of her concerns, Mazu went to the Chief Conservation Officer. The Chief Conservation Officer’s review took a long time and when Mazu read the decision, she was disappointed that it too did not address all of the concerns she had raised.

Mazu was concerned about her reputation with officials and other fishers and she was concerned that there was a record of the charge even though the proceeding had been stayed.

During our investigation we reviewed the Conservation Officer Service complaints policy which had been updated since Mazu requested a review. Had the updates been in place when Mazu requested the review, her complaint might have been considered in a more timely way and she might have been more accepting of the outcome.

Through our investigation, the ministry agreed to provide Mazu with a letter that provided her with more information in answer to some of her concerns. The ministry’s letter also apologized for the delays and explained that after Mazu asked for the review, the Conservation Office had staffing challenges that contributed to the delay. The ministry also explained to Mazu how they had improved their complaints policy since she made the request to the ministry and noted that they had implemented a better tracking process. Most importantly to Mazu, the ministry explained that their internal records showed there was a stay of proceedings in her case and that the records would be destroyed after ten years.