<html><head><meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html charset=us-ascii"></head><body style="word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; -webkit-line-break: after-white-space;"><br><div><div>On 31 Oct, 2014, at 1:14 pm, Noel Butler <<a href="mailto:noel.butler@ausics.net">noel.butler@ausics.net</a>> wrote:</div><blockquote type="cite">
<div style="font-size: 10pt"><p><span style="font-size: 10pt;">Thats tends to suggest that, one could argue the court has no authority in law to </span><span style="font-size: 10pt;">compel release of that stored data in civil matters. Neither of us are lawyers, but one could reasonably assume that to be the case, I guess it might take a High Court challenge to answer that for certainty.</span></p></div></blockquote></div><br><div>Section 110A prescribes a list of law enforcement agencies which can access stored data without requiring an intervention from a court.</div><div><br></div><div>The Bill is completely silent on what happens when a court order has been provided.</div><div><br></div><div>Courts already have wide discretion to compel disclosure of virtually any stored document. There is nothing in this Bill which exempts data retention repositories from those processes.</div><div><br></div><div>So far we've seen representatives from the legislative branch and the executive branch state that the repositories will be discoverable, and the black and white text of a bill which doesn't exempt repositories from discovery. </div><div><br></div><div>You can keep insisting that courts won't be able to exercise jurisdiction over it if you want, but you're going to feel a bit silly about it if you do, when a subpoena arrives on your desk. "You have no authority," will be a particularly hilarious argument for you to make.</div><div><br></div><div> - mark</div><div><br></div><div><br></div></body></html>