Commonwealth Consolidated Acts

SURVEILLANCE DEVICES ACT 2004 - SECT 34

             (1)  Before deciding an application for approval of the giving of an emergency authorisation given under section 28, the eligible Judge or nominated AAT member considering the application must, in particular, and being mindful of the intrusive nature of using a surveillance device, consider the following:

                     (a)  the nature of the risk of serious violence to a person or substantial damage to property;

                     (b)  the extent to which issuing a surveillance device warrant would have helped reduce or avoid the risk;

                     (c)  the extent to which law enforcement officers could have used alternative methods of investigation to help reduce or avoid the risk;

                     (d)  how much the use of alternative methods of investigation could have helped reduce or avoid the risk;

                     (e)  how much the use of alternative methods of investigation would have prejudiced the safety of the person or property because of delay or for another reason;

                      (f)  whether or not it was practicable in the circumstances to apply for a surveillance device warrant.

             (2)  Before deciding an application for approval of the giving of an emergency authorisation given under section 29, the eligible Judge or nominated AAT member considering the application must, in particular, and being mindful of the intrusive nature of using a surveillance device, consider the following:

                     (a)  the urgency of enforcing the recovery order;

                     (b)  the extent to which use of a surveillance device would assist in the location and safe recovery of the child to whom the recovery order relates;

                     (c)  the extent to which law enforcement officers could have used alternative methods to assist in the location and safe recovery of the child;

                     (d)  how much the use of alternative methods to assist in the location and safe recovery of the child might have prejudiced the effective enforcement of the recovery order;

                     (e)  whether or not it was practicable in the circumstances to apply for a surveillance device warrant.

             (3)  Before deciding an application for approval of the giving of an emergency authorisation given under section 30, the eligible Judge or nominated AAT member must, in particular, and being mindful of the intrusive nature of using a surveillance device, consider the following:

                     (a)  the nature of the risk of the loss of evidence;

                     (b)  the extent to which issuing a surveillance device warrant would have helped reduce or avoid the risk;

                     (c)  the extent to which law enforcement officers could have used alternative methods of investigation to help reduce or avoid the risk;

                     (d)  how much the use of alternative methods of investigation could have helped reduce or avoid the risk;

                     (e)  whether or not it was practicable in the circumstances to apply for a surveillance device warrant.