The university has said the magazine was disposed of due to a mistake made by ``staff in the proctor's office'', after Critic staff voluntarily took copies of the magazine out of Dunedin Hospital.
A spokeswoman said on Monday correspondence to and from the proctor's office about the magazines could not be released, after the Otago Daily Times requested it under the Official Information Act
The only existing correspondence concerning Critic related ``to the formulation of responses to media and other inquiries concerning the removal of copies of the magazine''.
``These are withheld under 9(2)(g)(i) of the Official Information Act on the basis that staff must be free to exchange views confidentially as they develop responses to media and others,'' she said.
Victoria University law lecturer Eddie Clark said at first glance it was ``not unreasonable'' for the university to rely on the section because public release of the information might inhibit staff.
``That said, when you consider the concrete situation, and the options other than outright refusal that the university has, it's less clear this is justified.''
The university was able to redact names rather than simply refusing to provide information, he said.
``This is especially relevant for junior staff members; senior staff can reasonably be expected to stand behind their views.''
In response to Mr Clark's comments, the spokeswoman stressed the only correspondence the university had ``was generated some 24 hours later'' and related to the preparation of the university's public position.
Other than Campus Watch staff who misunderstood a comment by the proctor, no university personnel were involved in the decision to remove the magazine, she said.
