Bold statement: the line between journalism and cooperation blurred when Tom Phillips’ documentary crew agreed that police could preview and edit the film before its release. Here’s a clear, beginner-friendly rewrite that preserves every key detail while expanding slightly for context and clarity.
But first, a quick note: this is a complex, potentially sensitive topic with competing viewpoints. Different readers may weigh police access and editorial control differently, and you’re invited to share your thoughts in the comments.
Rewritten content:
A Dunedin-based film team from NHNZ Productions spent more than a year shadowing the pursuit of fugitive Tom Phillips and his children, gaining privileged access to the ongoing investigation. The project centered on a feature-length documentary about the case, and the final agreement shows that the filmmakers were allowed to view evidence, attend police briefings, and record various operations throughout the year.
Tom Phillips died after a confrontation with police during a burglary call in September.
The access agreement, obtained by RNZ under the Official Information Act, spells out the terms the filmmakers agreed to back in March. Key elements include:
- Exclusive opportunities to view evidence and to observe and record police briefings, meetings, and operations related to the case.
- The police would retain substantial control over the documentary project in exchange for this access.
- The final documentary proposal outlined a focus on follow-footage of staff involved in Operation Curly and related operations, along with interviews with investigation personnel and specialist officers, as well as footage of police interactions with the Marokopa community and local stakeholders (subject to permissions).
- Potential aerial footage via drone during operations, plus access to additional footage, audio recordings, and still images held by the police, as well as transcripts or recordings of interviews.
- Access to stills, CCTV, and trail camera footage used as evidence, contingent on permissions.
Crucially, the contract grants the police the right to preview any broadcast and demand edits or removals for reasons such as security, privacy, or relevant court orders. The police also retain veto rights over replays or altered versions of the documentary and can terminate filming access at any time.
Grounds for termination include any breach of the access agreement by the producer or staff, with a five-working-day remedy window. If a breach cannot be remedied—such as disobedience of a police directive—the authorities can terminate the agreement without notice.
The filmmakers are prohibited from using any material recorded for the documentary for other purposes unless the police authorize it in writing. The agreement also restricts the use of photographs of the children unless the legal guardian and the police give permission, except for images already published in the media.
These provisions exist within the framework of substantial suppression orders issued by the Family Court, which remain in force today.
All producers’ employees, agents, and contractors were required to undergo police vetting, and the producer accepted liability capped at $1 million for the documentary.
The contract was signed on March 20, 2025, by the police and NHNZ Worldwide (Dunedin), in partnership with Grain Media Ltd (London).
The documentary is expected to air in 2027, though this timeline remains contingent on ongoing court proceedings.
Follow-up question: Do you want this rewritten version to lean more toward a straightforward news summary, or keep the editorial, opinion-provoking hooks and questions toward the end? Also, would you like additional examples or analogies to help explain editorial control in film projects to beginners?
