While the thread seems to have wandered somewhat, I was interested in Russell's post, because it raised some issues I'd been mulling over ever since a box of discovery documents relating to the Nia Glassie homicide was found in an Auckland landfill. I think both cases highlight a hole in the law.

The police, lawyers, and organisations such as TradeMe and banks (who are often required to provide information to police, usually under a search warrant) are all subject to the Privacy Act. The Act does allow information to be disclosed to the police for an investigation (as TradeMe rightly pointed out in its email). While TradeMe only has to disclose information it thinks is reasonably necessary to avoid prejudice to the maintenance of the law, I think they'd be covered if they disclosed information in accordance with a search warrant, even if that search warrant was framed pretty broadly.

I don't think the problem is so much at the front end of disclosure, given the procedural protections around the granting of search warrants. The main problem seems to be about what happens to the information once it is discovered.

Defence lawyers who receive discovery documents are subject to the Privacy Act, which means that they have an obligation to dispose of the documents securely once the documents are no longer required. There is a civil enforcement mechanism - investigation by the Privacy Commissioner - if the obligation is breached.

However, you and I are not subject to the Privacy Act, and nor is Jamie Lockett. We all have the right to represent ourselves in criminal trials. Even where we have a lawyer, I imagine it's pretty unusual for a lawyer not to show us the discovery documents if we want to see them. But because we are not subject to the Privacy Act, there's nothing to require us to dispose of discovery documents securely (as opposed to dumping them at the landfill), and there's nothing to stop us using the information for purposes unrelated to the trial (eg posting people's TradeMe details on the internet).

It seems pretty ironic that the ultimate fate of discovery documents rests with whether or not there's a defence lawyer in the picture.