grounds of race or ethnicity.187 The Commission will try to resolve the issue through informal methods such as mediation. However, if it is not resolved, individuals can take their complaint to the HRRT, where remedies may be granted if it is found that there has been a breach of the HRA.188 Civil Individuals may bring a civil case in the New Zealand courts for a breach of BORA. Such a claim may represent elements of a person’s private life and autonomy, including the right to be secure against unreasonable search and seizure, the right to freedom of association, and the right to freedom of expression. The Court of Appeal in Baigent’s Case established that the remedy of monetary compensation was available to grant relief for a breach of the BORA, notwithstanding the absence of a specific remedies section in the Act. As noted in section 2, the Court of Appeal in the case of Hosking v Runting found that there is a tort for invasion of privacy in New Zealand, which provides a direct remedy against the disclosure of private facts about a person. Criminal There is an array of criminal offences in New Zealand which impose penalties for various sorts of conduct that might be categorised as invasions of privacy. Privacy of communications, especially via mail and telephone, receives fairly extensive protection. There are also offences relating to the disclosure of private or confidential information189 and offences relating to computers.190 187 See s 6.4 describing concerns in the US where the use of algorithmic techniques has exacerbated racially biased procedures and outcomes in the law enforcement sector. 188 Human Rights Act 1993, s 92I. 189 Part 9A of the Crimes Act 1961, entitled “Crimes against personal privacy” protects private communications through regulating the use of interception devices. It is an offence, punishable by up to two years’ imprisonment, to intercept any private communication using an interception device, unless the person intercepting the communication is a party to that communication or it was carried out in pursuance to the Search and Surveillance Act 2012, Part 4 of the Intelligence and Security Act 2017 or the International Terrorism (Emergency Powers) Act 1987). Where a private communication has been intercepted contrary to the Act, it is prohibited to intentionally disclose the communication or its substance or meaning, or to intentionally disclose the existence of the communication, if the discloser knows that the communication has come to his or her knowledge as a direct or indirect result of contravening the Act (Crimes Act 1961, s 216C). 190 A person who intentionally access a computer system, directly or indirectly, without authorisation, knowing that they are not authorised to access the computer system or being reckless as to whether they are authorised, commit an offence (Crimes Act 1961, s 252). Harmful Digital Communications The Harmful Digital Communications Act sets out ten communication principles, including that a digital communication should not disclose sensitive personal facts about an individual. An individual can make a complaint to Netsafe, the approved agency under the Act, if they believe that one of the principles has been breached. Netsafe will work with parties to find a resolution. However, if parties cannot agree, the agency will refer cases to the District Court. The court can make a range of orders including for removal of content and for an apology to be published.191 The Act also provides for criminal liability when a person does not comply with an order or when a person posts a digital communication with the intention that it cause harm and harm actually results. Inspector General of Intelligence and Security The IGIS can inquire into complaints by individuals who claim they have been adversely affected by any act, omission, practice, policy, or procedure of an intelligence and security agency.192 During an inquiry the IGIS may compel giving of information, take evidence from witnesses in private, summon and examine under oath any person who is able to give information relevant to the inquiry. On the completion of the inquiry, the IGIS must prepare a written report containing his or her conclusions and recommendations which may include recommendations that the agency provide redress including remedies that involve the payment of compensation.193 The report is published publicly and the report or findings cannot be challenged or reviewed or called into question by a court except on the grounds of lack of jurisdiction.194 Judicial review An individual can apply to the High Court for a review of actions or decisions of a public or 191 For more information see https://www.consumerprotection.govt.nz/ consumer-law-and-your-rights/online-safety/harmful-digital-communications-act/ 192 Intelligence and Security Act 2017, s 171. The most common type of complaints relate to adverse recommendations by the NZSIS as to security clearances required for employment, http://www.igis.govt.nz/ complaints/ 193 Ibid., s 185. 194 Ibid., s 190. 37