(1)  After considering an application for approval in respect of an emergency authorisation given under section 23 , the Supreme Court or magistrate may approve the application if satisfied that there were reasonable grounds to suspect or believe that –

(a) there was a risk of serious violence to a person or substantial damage to property; and

(b) using a surveillance device may have helped reduce the risk; and

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

(2)  After considering an application for approval in respect of an emergency authorisation given under section 24 , the Supreme Court may approve the application if satisfied that –

(a) use of the surveillance device in this jurisdiction was authorised under a law of this jurisdiction, in connection with an investigation into a relevant offence; and

(b) there were reasonable grounds to suspect or believe that –

(i) there was a risk of loss of evidence; and

(ii) using the surveillance device in a participating jurisdiction may have helped reduce the risk; and

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

(3)  If the Supreme Court or magistrate approves an application for approval of the exercise of powers under an emergency authorisation, the Supreme Court or magistrate may issue a surveillance device warrant for the continued use of the surveillance device as if the application were an application for a surveillance device warrant under Division 2 of Part 2 .

(4)  If the Supreme Court or magistrate does not approve an application under this section, the Supreme Court or magistrate may order that the use of the surveillance device cease.

(5)  In any case, the Supreme Court or a magistrate may order that any information obtained from or relating to the exercise of powers under the emergency authorisation or any record of that information be dealt with in the way specified in the order.