The Act’s operational vocabulary and structural concepts determine where and how powers apply.

Definitions and scope

• Court and court premises. The Act defines "court" broadly to include Supreme Court, a court of petty sessions, court of summary jurisdiction, the Magistrates Court and tribunals (s 3). "Court premises" is wide and purposive. It includes (a) a courtroom, (b) forecourts, parking areas, corridors, toilets and other areas used in conjunction with the premises, (c) entrances and exits, (d) locations used to enable remote appearances by audio or audio-visual means, and (e) any place where a view, hearing or taking of evidence is being carried out, as well as parts used in relation to the operation or management of a court (s 3). This means the Act’s powers and prohibitions apply well beyond a single room and extend to virtual hearing locations and remote facilitation spaces.
• Principal court premises. The Act treats courtrooms and related places used for remote appearances or evidentiary viewings as "principal court premises" for purposes of electronic device controls under s 11(1). The special regime for electronic devices targets these spaces.
• Prohibited objects. "Prohibited object" is an umbrella term that includes controlled substances (as defined in the Misuse of Drugs Act 2001), liquor (Police Offences Act 1935), dangerous objects and disruptive objects (s 3). "Dangerous object" expressly includes ammunition, chemical agents, explosives, inflammable liquids and weapons (s 3).
• Security officer and security manager. The statutory roster of persons who may act as security officers is broad and includes judicial administrative officers such as the Registrar, Administrator and Chief Clerks, police officers, security guards provided under contract, security managers and others appointed under s 4(8) (s 3, definition of "security officer"). A "security manager" is separately appointed under s 6 and may give directions to security officers (s 6(9)).

Powers and operational limits

• Searches and seizures. Security officers may stop vehicles, require searches of vehicles and personal effects and seize prohibited objects and electronic devices under ss 12 and 15. Conduct of searches must be expeditious and afford reasonable privacy. Special rules apply where removal of clothing is required, including gender-related provisions and limits on presence during the search (s 13).
• Electronic and recording device controls. Use of electronic devices and recording devices in principal court premises is broadly prohibited (s 11(2)), but there are enumerated exceptions for judicial officers, Crown employees employed for court purposes, legal practitioners in the course of work, certain journalists and in other regulatory exceptions. The Act also prohibits publication, without consent, of photographs, video images and recordings taken in principal court premises (s 11(6)). Security officers may seize devices used in contravention of s 11 and copy their recordings (s 15(5)), and managers or judicial officers may delete images or retain devices as evidence (s 15(6)).
• Identity and conduct directions. Security officers may require disclosure of name, address and reason for visit and evidence of identity, subject to a carve-out for persons who immediately provide satisfactory proof of being a legal practitioner, police officer or public servant acting in the course of duty (s 14).
• Removal, arrest and custody. Security officers have powers to remove or direct a person to leave for specified types of misbehaviour or non-compliance (s 17). They have power to arrest without warrant where they reasonably believe an offence under the Act is being committed or has just been committed (s 18), may pursue outside premises in specified circumstances (s 18(2)-(3)), and must deliver arrested persons to police as soon as practicable if not a police officer (s 18(4)). Security officers may escort and guard persons in custody and take into custody where court remand or sentence authorises detention (ss 18A, 19).
• Delegation, rules and regulations. The Act enables courts and judicial officers to issue rules, guidelines and directions (s 30) and enables the Governor to make regulations, including delegations to named office-holders for prescribed matters (s 31). Rules cannot be inconsistent with the Act (s 30(3)).

Trade-offs encoded in the Act

• Balancing security and openness. The Act restricts access and conduct on court premises while retaining exceptions for court functions and certain professionals. The device and recording prohibitions prioritise control over electronic dissemination in principal court spaces, with limited exceptions for core court functionaries.
• Vesting of discretion. Appointing officers may set conditions and vary or revoke appointments (ss 4(6), 4(8), 6(8)). Security managers can direct security officers (s 6(9)). Many powers are expressed with "reasonable grounds" tests and subjective elements such as "necessary in the interests of securing order, safety or security" (s 9), which places judgment calls on judicial officers and security personnel.

These core concepts and limitations determine who may act, where powers attach, and the legal and practical boundaries for search, seizure, device control and exclusion on court premises.

The Act affects court ecosystems and a range of private and public actors. Identify who pays, who decides and who changes behaviour.

Primary institutional actors

• Judicial officers and courts. Judges, magistrates, registrars and other judicial officers are central decision-makers. They may give directions, close premises (s 9), appoint security officers and security managers (ss 4, 6), issue rules and guidelines for the Act’s operation for the court concerned (s 30), and make orders that may override a security officer’s actions (s 18A). The Act preserves inherent or implied jurisdiction of a court to regulate its proceedings (s 8(3)(c)) and preserves powers in relation to contempt (s 28(2)).
• Appointing officers and administrators. The Registrar of the Supreme Court, the Administrator of the Magistrates Court, Chief Clerks and heads of tribunal agencies decide who is appointed, the conditions of appointment, and may revoke or vary appointments (ss 4, 6, 7). Appointing officers must issue identity cards and manage return of cards on cessation of appointment (s 7).
• Security officers and security managers. These persons exercise the Act’s operational powers: directing entry, conducting searches, seizing devices, directing removal, and effecting arrest in circumstances specified in the Act (see Parts 3 and 4). Security managers may give directions to security officers (s 6(9)).

Public, private and regulated users of court premises

• Members of the public and court users. The general public who attend courts must comply with directions of judicial officers and security officers, signs and requirements, and are subject to prohibitions on bringing prohibited objects onto court premises (s 8, s 10). Failure to comply attracts fines or other sanctions (various sections).
• Legal practitioners and court officers. The Act carves out certain protections and exceptions for legal practitioners, prosecutors and officers of the court in relation to use of electronic devices in principal court premises (s 11(4)(b)). It also limits the power to require identity disclosure where a person claims to be a lawyer and immediately provides satisfactory proof (s 14(4)).
• Journalists. The Act gives a limited right to enter and remain in public, outdoor parts of court premises for journalists making media reports, so long as they do not obstruct access (s 8(2)). The definition of journalist in s 3 sets conditions, including payment by a person or body subject to an appropriate code of ethics or holding a broadcasting licence. Journalists have limited exceptions to the electronic-device prohibition under s 11(4)(b), but s 11(5) restricts activities that interfere with court technology, decorum, generate electronic sound, or involve photographing or videoing proceedings or making recordings or digital transcriptions.
• Police and other statutory officers. Police officers are included in the definition of security officer and enjoy certain carve-outs to possession offences in non-principal court premises (s 3; s 10(2)(d)). The Act explicitly preserves powers conferred on police officers by other law (s 28(3)).
• Security agents and private providers. Appointing officers may enter into arrangements with a security agent to provide security guards temporarily as security officers under s 5. The Act thereby brings private security providers under the statutory regime when they are acting as security officers for the court (s 3, definition of "security officer" and s 5).
• Persons in custody. The Act provides mechanics for taking into custody where courts order remand or sentence, and for escorting, detaining and guarding such persons on court premises (ss 18A, 19). Correctional officers and authorised persons under other Acts are excepted from s 10 prohibitions in non-principal court premises when performing their statutory functions (s 10(2)(d)).

Vulnerable groups and special procedural provisions

• Children and minors. Searches that include removal of clothing for persons apparently 10 years of age or older are governed by procedural safeguards including opportunity to produce objects and to have the search conducted in private; searches must be conducted in presence of no more than two persons (s 13(4)). For children under 10, searches involving removal of clothing must be conducted by a female security officer, normally in the presence of only female persons and in the presence of an accompanying person if any (s 13(6)).
• Trans and intersex persons. The Act incorporates gender-sensitive search provisions. Where practicable, searches involving removal of clothing of persons apparently 10 or older should be conducted by a security officer of the same gender as the person or, if the person is transsexual, transgender or has variations of sex characteristics, of the gender the person requests. Presence during the search is likewise to respect gender as practicable (s 13(5)).

Who bears costs or burdens

• Individuals attending court premises face compliance costs: submitting to searches, depositing devices or personal effects, being detained or removed, and facing fines or criminal liability for non-compliance (multiple sections).
• Courts and appointing officers bear administrative and compliance costs: recruiting and appointing security officers and managers, issuing identity cards, developing procedures and signage, training staff on search protocols and device handling, drafting rules and guidelines under s 30 and managing relationships with private security agents under s 5.
• Security agents and private firms providing guards may face contractual obligations to comply with statutory powers and may be required to ensure their staff comply with the Act when acting as security officers under an arrangement (s 5).

In short, the Act affects court administrators, security personnel (public and private), court users including journalists and legal practitioners, police and correctional officers, and vulnerable persons subject to search, with administrative and behavioural consequences spread across these groups.

This section summarises statutory duties imposed and rights or exceptions preserved by the Act, with section references to the operative text.

Duties and obligations imposed on security officers and managers

• Appointment and instrument conditions. Persons appointed as security officers and security managers are subject to the conditions set out in their instrument of appointment; appointing officers may vary those conditions or revoke appointments (s 4(6)-(8), s 6(6)-(8)).
• Identification. The appointing officer must issue an identity card that contains a name or unique identification code and states the person is a security officer or manager. Appointees must wear the card clearly visible while performing functions under the Act, and return the card on ceasing appointment (s 7(1)-(3)).
• Conduct of searches. Searches must be conducted expeditiously and in circumstances that provide reasonable privacy. Security officers must follow the specific procedural protections for searches involving removal of clothing for persons apparently over 10 and for children under 10, and the gender-related requirements where practicable (s 13(2)-(7)).
• Information prior to exercising power. Where reasonably practicable, a security officer must provide evidence of being a security officer, give their name or ID code, state the reason for the exercise of the power and warn that failure to comply may be an offence (s 22).
• Confidentiality. Security officers must not record, disclose, communicate or use confidential information except to the extent necessary for their functions or in specified authorised circumstances, and a failure attracts a penalty for breach (s 24(2)-(3)).

Duties and powers exercised by courts and judicial officers

• Closure and exclusion. A judicial officer or, subject to the judicial officer’s directions, a security officer may order members of the public generally or specified persons to leave or not be admitted to court premises if necessary to secure order, safety or security (s 9(1)). Non-compliance is an offence (s 9(2)).
• Rules and guidelines. Judicial officers may issue directions or guidelines for the purposes of the Act, and rules may be made by the judges, Magistrates Rule Committee, or tribunal chair as applicable (s 30(1)-(2)). These instruments must be consistent with the Act (s 30(3)).
• Delegation and regulations. The Governor may make regulations and may permit specified office-holders to determine, apply or regulate matters as set out in the regulations, including differential application by court type (s 31).

Duties on persons entering or on court premises

• Comply with directions and requirements. Persons may enter and remain in public parts of court premises only if they comply with directions by judicial officers or security officers and with security signs and notices (s 8(1)). Failure to comply with lawful directions is an offence with specified penalties (e.g., ss 12(2), 14(2), 15(2), 20(2), 17(2)).
• Disclosure and identity. A security officer may require a person to disclose name, residential address, reason for visit and provide evidence of identity. There is a defence where a person instead leaves the premises as soon as practicable (s 14(1)-(3)). Security officers cannot exercise these powers in respect of persons who claim to be a lawyer, police officer or public servant acting in the course of duty and who immediately provide satisfactory proof of that claim (s 14(4)).
• Deposit of items. A security officer may request deposit of personal effects, prohibited objects or electronic devices. Failure to comply without reasonable excuse is an offence, subject to defences where a person leaves instead or provides evidence that they are excepted under s 11(3)-(4) (s 15(1)-(3)).
• Prohibition on possession and attempted introduction. A person must not possess or attempt to bring a prohibited object onto court premises without reasonable excuse. Penalties vary depending on whether the object is a dangerous object (s 10(1)-(2)).

Rights and carved-out exemptions

• Exceptions to prohibited-object rules. The Act sets specific exceptions to s 10, for example where an object is an exhibit authorised in proceedings or is authorised by a judicial officer or security officer, or where possession is by certain officers performing statutory duties, or otherwise prescribed by regulation (s 10(2)(a)-(e)).
• Use of devices exceptions. Use of electronic devices and recording devices in principal court premises is prohibited in s 11(2) but does not apply to judicial officers, Crown employees employed for court purposes, uses expressly permitted by judicial officer directions and permissions, legal practitioners, prosecutors or officers of the court in the course of their work, and certain journalists (s 11(3)-(4)). Subsection 11(5) still prohibits uses that interfere with court audio systems, decorum, generate electronic sound, involve photography or video, or consist of recording or digital transcription of proceedings.
• Journalist right to be in public, outdoor parts. Journalists may enter and remain in a part of court premises open to the public located outside a building where a courtroom is situated or where court is sitting, for the purpose of making a media report, provided they do not obstruct access to the building (s 8(2)). The Act’s definition of "journalist" contains eligibility conditions (s 3).
• Professional claim protection in identity disclosure. Persons who claim to be legal practitioners, police officers or public servants and immediately provide satisfactory proof are protected from identity enquiry under s 14(4).

Limits and safeguards on powers

• Geographic and appointment limits. Security officers and managers who are not police officers may only exercise functions and powers in relation to the court for which they were appointed (s 23).
• Procedural safeguards for searches of minors and for gender preferences. The Act imposes constraints for searches involving removal of clothing and sets presence limits, privacy opportunity and gender-related practical arrangements (s 13).
• Preservation of other powers. The Act expressly states it is in addition to and does not derogate from other powers of courts, judicial officers or police. Nothing in the Act affects a court’s contempt powers (s 28).

These duties and rights create a framework balancing operational authority for court security with specific carve-outs, procedural protections and limits grounded in appointment, location and role.

The Act prescribes fines, imprisonment in limited cases, seizure powers, arrest without warrant, and interaction with police processes. This section collects the statutory sanctions and enforcement mechanics with section references.

Monetary penalties and imprisonment

• 50 penalty units as a standard sanction. Many contraventions attract a fine not exceeding 50 penalty units. Examples include failure to comply with search directions (s 12(2)), refusal to comply with identity disclosure (s 14(2)), failing to comply with deposit requests (s 15(2)), contravening directions given to ensure safety or good order (s 20(2)), contravening removal directions (s 17(2)), the closure order under s 9(2) (fine not exceeding 50 units), and the prohibition on use of electronic devices in principal court premises (s 11(2), penalty fine not exceeding 50 penalty units). The Act also makes non-compliance with wearing identity cards and return obligations subject to general obligations in s 7(2)-(3), although no specific penalty is stated there.
• 100 penalty units and imprisonment for possession of dangerous objects. Possession of a prohibited object that is a dangerous object carries a higher maximum penalty: fine up to 100 penalty units or imprisonment for up to 6 months, or both (s 10(1)(b)).
• Obstruction and impersonation. Wilful delay, hindrance or obstruction of a security officer or falsely representing oneself to be a security officer is an offence carrying a fine not exceeding 50 penalty units or imprisonment up to 6 months, or both (s 26).
• Confidentiality breach has a smaller penalty. Breach of the confidentiality duty in s 24(2) attracts a penalty of up to 5 penalty units, a relatively modest sanction given the general sensitivity of confidential information handled by security personnel (s 24(2)).

Enforcement mechanics: arrest, seizure, detention and retention

• Arrest without warrant. Security officers may arrest without a warrant on court premises where they believe on reasonable grounds an offence against the Act is being or has just been committed, or is about to be committed (s 18(1)). They may pursue and arrest outside premises in specified circumstances where the person left to avoid arrest and the pursuit was not interrupted (s 18(2)-(3)). A non-police security officer who effects an arrest must as soon as practicable take the person to a police officer to be dealt with according to law (s 18(4)).
• Seizure of prohibited objects and electronic devices. Security officers may seize prohibited objects found during searches and may seize devices used in contravention of s 11(2). They may copy images or sounds recorded on seized devices (s 15(4)-(5)). A security manager or judicial officer may delete images or sounds from seized devices and retain devices for the period necessary to do so, or retain devices as evidence and give them to police (s 15(6)). These powers allow both evidentiary preservation and immediate remediation of recordings.
• Directions to leave, removal and use of force. Security officers may direct persons to leave, remove persons, and use reasonable force and assistance reasonably necessary to perform functions (ss 17, 21). Directions are lawful instruments the contravention of which attracts a fine (s 17(2)). Security officers have statutory authority for reasonable force, including use of restraints while escorting or detaining persons in custody (s 21, s 19).
• Return or handover of items. Where a prohibited object has been deposited or seized, a security officer must return it if requested when the person leaves court premises unless the officer has reasonable cause to advise police and hand the object to police because it may be required as evidence, the person is not legally entitled to possess it, or it may be used imminently to commit an offence (s 16).
• Summary proceedings. An offence under this Act may be dealt with summarily by the Magistrates Court or a court of petty sessions (s 29). This indicates the primary mode of prosecution and disposition for contraventions.

Limits on liability and other protections

• Limitation of personal liability. Security officers and managers do not incur personal liability for acts or omissions done in good faith in performance or exercise, or purported performance or exercise, of functions or powers under the Act (s 27). This provides a civil liability shield for authorised actions taken in good faith.
• Preservation of other powers. The Act expressly preserves other powers of courts and police, indicating enforcement may proceed under other laws in addition to this Act (s 28).

Administrative enforcement

• Rules, guidelines and regulations. The Act expects implementation detail and standards to be set by rules and guidelines issued by judicial officers, and by regulations made by the Governor. Regulations can authorise specific office-holders to determine or regulate matters (s 30, s 31). These instruments will be primary vehicles for setting operational enforcement procedures, evidentiary handling standards, and delegated decision-making.

Operational implications

• Multiple actors enforce the Act: security officers and managers execute immediate enforcement actions; judicial officers set high-level closure or restriction orders; police are the ultimate custodial and prosecutorial authority once security officers arrest or hand over persons or items (s 18(4), s 16(b)(i)-(ii)).
• The Act provides immediate on-site enforcement tools with statutory backing combined with transfer to police for criminal processing. It therefore places a compliance and evidentiary burden on courts and security staff to act consistently with the Act’s procedural safeguards to avoid challenges or civil claims, subject to the good-faith shield in s 27.

The Act is tightly cross-referenced and expressly calibrated to sit alongside other statutory regimes and court powers. The text contains several explicit interactions and preserves non-derogation where necessary.

Definitions that import other Acts

• Several defined terms adopt the definitions from other legislation. "Ammunition" and "firearm" are given the same meanings as in the Firearms Act 1996; "controlled substance" is defined with reference to the Misuse of Drugs Act 2001; "liquor" is given the meaning in the Police Offences Act 1935; "Chief Clerk (Coronial Division)" and "coroner" use the Coroners Act 1995 definitions (s 3). These cross-references import existing substantive legal definitions and ensure consistency between the court-security regime and legislation regulating weapons, drugs and related matters.
• "Security guard" and "security agent" import meanings from the Security and Investigations Agents Act 2002 (s 3). This creates a direct regulatory link to that licensing and conduct regime where private security providers are engaged.

Preservation of judicial and police powers

• The Act states plainly that the powers conferred are in addition to and do not derogate from any powers conferred on or possessed by a court, judicial officer or person in relation to conduct of proceedings or regulation of persons (s 28(1)). It separately preserves contempt powers and police powers (s 28(2)-(3)). This is important: actions taken under the Act do not replace or limit existing powers of courts or police, and parallel proceedings or enforcement under other laws remain available.

Interaction with court procedural regimes

• The Act authorises judicial officers to issue directions and guidelines for purposes of the Act and allows rules to be made for each court or tribunal by the relevant rule-making body (s 30). Those rules and guidelines must be consistent with the Act (s 30(3)). This creates a layered regulatory architecture: the Act sets statutory baseline powers; courts may add procedural rules; and regulations may prescribe detail for administration.
• The Act covers virtual or remote hearing locations by defining court premises to include places used to enable persons at a different location to appear by audio or audio-visual communication (s 3). This ties the Act’s controls, particularly on electronic devices and recordings, into remote hearing practice, and brings them into contact with any separate rules on remote hearings or audio-visual administration.

Evidence, seizure and police processes

• Seized objects and devices. If a security officer believes a seized prohibited object may be required as evidence, is unlawfully possessed by the person, or may be used imminently to commit an offence, the officer must advise and give the object to police (s 16(b)). Security managers or judicial officers may delete images from seized devices or retain them as evidence and hand them to police (s 15(6)). These provisions create a direct evidentiary handover path and intersect with criminal procedure and evidentiary law.
• Other statutory officers. The Act provides exceptions for police officers, correctional officers and authorised persons under the Mental Health Act 2013 in respect of possession of prohibited objects in non-principal court premises when performing statutory duties (s 10(2)(d)). This respects and interfaces with the separate statutory powers of those officers.

Privacy, discrimination and human rights

• The Act contains procedural protections for searches involving removal of clothing and gender-sensitive provisions that are tied directly to the Anti-Discrimination Act 1998 definitions of transgender and transsexual for purposes of search conduct (s 13(1); amendments noted). The Act therefore draws on anti-discrimination definitions and locates search conduct within that legal context.
• While the Act regulates recording and publication of images and sounds from principal court premises, it does not purport to displace privacy laws or broadcasting restrictions; any handling of personal data or recordings will still have to comply with data protection and other applicable laws. The Act does provide an express power to delete images and to copy and retain images as evidence (s 15(5)-(6)), which interacts with privacy and electronic evidence regimes when implemented.

Regulatory delegations and administrative law

• The regulations may authorise named persons to determine, apply or regulate matters in relation to each court type (s 31(3)). Delegation to individual office-holders for specified matters will engage administrative law principles when executed and may be subject to judicial review if unlawful or outside delegated authority. The Act preserves internal rule-making by courts and tribunals (s 30) and administrative arrangements under the Administrative Arrangements Act 1990 for the Act’s administration until otherwise ordered (s 32).

Exclusions and facility-specific interactions

• Proceedings at care facilities. The Act does not apply to proceedings held at facilities providing care or treatment unless the facility manager agrees with the relevant appointing authority that the Act will apply (s 25). This creates an interaction with any separate care or custodial statutory regimes regulating facility management, security and patient handling.

Summary The Act is constructed to sit alongside and refer to several other statutes for meaning and carve-outs. It preserves existing court and police powers, references anti-discrimination definitions for search conduct, imports definitions from weapon and drug statutes, and contemplates delegated implementation via regulations and court rules. Implementing authorities will need to ensure compliance not only with the Act but with the cross-referenced statutes and with administrative law constraints on delegated decision-making.

The Act text as provided contains explicit amendment notes to particular provisions and records repeals and rescissions of predecessor instruments. The operative amendments and historical legislative changes noted within the Act are listed below, with the provision references the Act itself makes.

• Section 13 updates. The record in s 13(1) shows that subsection (1) and subsections (5) were amended by "No. 19 of 2023, s. 10", applied 21 September 2023. The amendments incorporate definitions referencing the Anti-Discrimination Act 1998 for "transgender" and "transsexual", and the text at s 13(5) includes the amended language about conducting searches, where practicable, by security officers of the same gender, and accommodating transsexual, transgender or persons with variations of sex characteristics (s 13(1), s 13(5)).
• Section 18A insertion and amendment. Section 18A was inserted by "No. 29 of 2018, s. 19", applied 10 December 2018. The provision authorises a security officer, subject to any court order or direction to the contrary, to take into custody persons remanded, sentenced or otherwise ordered detained by a court (s 18A). Section 18A was later amended by "No. 2 of 2021, Sched. 2", applied 13 December 2021, with the amendment text flagged in the provision.
• Repeal and rescission provisions. Schedule 1 repeals the Admission to Courts Act 1916 (No. 12 of 1916) (s 33; Schedule 1). Schedule 2 rescinds the Admission to Courts (Lower Courts) Regulations 2016 (No. 106 of 2016) and the Admission to Courts (Supreme Court) Regulations 2016 (No. 107 of 2016) (s 34; Schedule 2). The Act thus replaces a previous admissions/entry regulatory framework with the statutory structure contained here.
• Commencement. The Act commences on a day to be proclaimed (s 2). No commencement date is embedded in the provided text.
• Transitional and savings powers. Section 31(4) permits regulations to contain savings or transitional provisions consequent on the enactment of this Act, enabling delegated instruments to manage transitional arrangements from repealed instruments to the new framework.
• Delegated rule-making. The Act contemplates the courts making rules under s 30 and the Governor making regulations under s 31 for the "purposes of this Act", with scope to apply differently to court types, to authorise specified office-holders to determine matters, and to provide savings or transitional provisions (ss 30-31). The amendment history does not show subsequent regulations in the text provided but authorises them.

No other amendment history, such as repeals of specific subsections or subsequent corrective amendments, is recorded in the text supplied. The embedded amendment notices provide three discrete legislative events: the 2018 insertion of s 18A; the 2021 amendment to s 18A; and the 2023 amendments to s 13 and associated gender-related conduct language. The Act also formally extinguishes earlier admission legislation and related regulations through Schedules 1 and 2.

For practitioners preparing advice or compliance material, the visible amendment history indicates attention was paid to custodial-taking powers in 2018 and 2021 and to gender and anti-discrimination considerations in search practice in 2023. Implementers should check the current versions of the cited amending Acts and any regulations or rules made under ss 30-31 that operationalise the Act, since the statute authorises delegated instruments and the Act’s commencement depends on proclamation.

The Act as provided contains no reported cases, judicial decisions, or references to litigation applying its provisions. The statutory text does not name or cite any judicial authorities, nor does it include a schedule of transitional judicial determinations. Therefore there is no direct litigation history recorded in the source material.

Nevertheless, the Act establishes multiple enforcement powers and procedural safeguards that are conventionally the subject of judicial review, criminal prosecutions, civil actions and appellate determinations in other contexts. From the text itself, a practitioner should expect the following types of litigation to be plausible, even though no decisions are recorded here.

• Criminal prosecutions for offences under the Act. The Act creates numerous summary offences carrying fines and, in certain cases, imprisonment (e.g., ss 10, 12, 14, 15, 17, 20, 26). Prosecutions for non-compliance with directions, possession of prohibited objects, obstruction, false representation and unauthorised recording or publication will follow ordinary criminal procedure and be dealt with summarily in Magistrates Court or court of petty sessions (s 29).
• Evidence and admissibility disputes. Seizures and copying of recordings (s 15(5)-(6)) create potential evidentiary disputes, for example over chain of custody, legality of seizure, or deletion of images by security managers or judicial officers. Where seized material is handed to police (s 16(b)), evidentiary handling procedures under criminal law will apply and may be challenged on statutory or common law grounds if processes were not followed.
• Administrative law challenges. Appointments, conditions, variation or revocation of appointment instruments (s 4(6)-(8), s 6(8)), regulatory delegations under s 31, and rules or guidelines under s 30 may become the subject of judicial review if a party alleges unlawful delegation, failure to follow proper process, bias or other public law errors.
• Confronting limits on search and arrest powers. The Act provides protections and tests such as "reasonable grounds" for arrests (s 18) and prescribes procedural safeguards for searches (s 13). Disputes could arise claiming exceedance of the "reasonable grounds" threshold, unlawful search or detention, or failure to comply with mandatory search safeguards (privacy, presence limits, gender considerations).
• Human rights or discrimination claims. The gender-related search provisions draw on definitions from the Anti-Discrimination Act 1998 and create procedural obligations to accommodate trans persons (s 13). Claims could arise under anti-discrimination or human rights frameworks if practitioners or courts allege that searches or conduct violated non-discrimination principles or failed to accommodate gender identity as the Act directs.
• Publication and press freedom issues. The prohibitions on use and publication of photographs, video images and recordings in principal court premises (s 11(2), s 11(6)) and the carve-outs for journalists (s 8(2), s 11(4)(b)) may prompt litigation where media organisations claim a right to report proceedings. Challenges could test the scope of the journalist definition in s 3 and whether particular reporting activities are covered by the exceptions and subject to s 11(5) constraints.

Because the Act authorises rules, guidelines and regulations for its operation (ss 30-31), much of the operational detail that could be litigated may be set in subordinate instruments. Practitioners should therefore review rules and regulations made under the Act for any litigation histories or cases that have applied or interpreted the Act in specific contexts.

In summary, while no litigation history is recorded in the statute as supplied, the Act’s instruments and enforcement powers create multiple plausible litigation vectors. Practitioners should monitor prosecutions under the Act, judicial review proceedings related to appointments or delegated instruments, and any appellate treatment of search, seizure, arrest and publication restrictions once cases arise.

This section highlights practical traps, drafting ambiguities, operational frictions and points likely to cause compliance failures or contested outcomes. All observations are grounded in the text of the Act.

Wide territorial scope of "court premises"

• Remote and ancillary spaces included. The definition of "court premises" includes remote hearing places and places used in relation to court management or for remote appearances (s 3). Courts and security officers might assume the Act applies only to a building; in practice it covers forecourts, walkways, carparks, toilets and remote locations. Failure to appreciate this may lead to unlawful refusals of entry or overreach in areas that an appointing officer did not intend to control.

Principal court premises and device restrictions

• Broad ban on electronic devices with limited exceptions. Section 11(2) broadly prohibits use of electronic or recording devices in principal court premises, but s 11(4) provides several narrow exceptions. Many day-to-day activities by journalists, litigants or observers may fall outside those exceptions because s 11(5) further carves out activities that interfere with court technology or decorum, or involve taking photos, video or records. Courts must be precise in communicating who may use devices and under what permissions to avoid arbitrary seizure or fines.
• Seizure and deletion powers. Security officers may seize devices and copy recordings (s 15(5)). Security managers or judicial officers may delete images or sounds and retain devices as necessary to delete or as evidence (s 15(6)). Deletion is a destructive act. Implementers must document the statutory basis and authorisation for deletion; otherwise deletion could be challenged as disproportionate or unlawful, especially where deletion removes potential defence material. The Act permits deletion, but the exercise should be auditable.

Definition of "journalist" is conditional

• Narrow eligibility. The s 3 definition requires payment by a person or body subject to a code of ethics with complaints procedures or by a holder of a broadcasting licence. Freelance, unpaid, or non-traditionally employed reporters may not meet this definition. A person who appears to be a journalist but does not meet the definition may therefore lack the Act’s limited protections and exceptions. Security officers must be trained to assess the definition and handle edge cases consistently.

Search process and gender-related provisions

• "If practicable" uncertainty. The gender-matching requirement for searches involving removal of clothing is qualified by the phrase "if practicable" (s 13(5)). That creates operational uncertainty in on-the-ground circumstances: what attempts must be made to secure a same-gender officer, and how are "practicability" and urgent safety needs balanced? Security officers will need clear procedural guidance and documentation to show reasonable steps were taken.
• Multiple presence limits and parental presence. For searches of persons apparently 10 or more, the person may request an accompanying person to be present and the searcher must comply unless it compromises safety (s 13(7)). For children under 10, searches with removal of clothing must be by female officers, normally only female persons present, and in the presence of an accompanying person unless the accompanying person refuses (s 13(6)). These overlapping rules could be difficult to operationalise in busy courts where mixed-gender shifts or limited staff might make compliance challenging.

Identity disclosure exception and immediate proof

• Immediate proof requirement. Security officers cannot use s 14(1) powers in respect of persons who claim to be a lawyer, police officer or State/Crown public servant and who "immediately provide satisfactory proof" (s 14(4)). What constitutes "satisfactory proof" is not defined. The absence of a clear standard may lead to disputes and either over-cautious acceptance or unnecessary demands for identity evidence. Systems (for example government ID verification procedures) should be set out in rules or guidelines.

Delegation and limits on exercise of powers

• Appointment and geographic limits. Section 23 restricts non-police security officers and managers to exercising powers only in relation to the court and court premises for which they were appointed. Temporary arrangements with security agents under s 5 create blurred lines: private security guards acting as security officers must be clearly appointed for that court and their scope limited by the instrument of appointment. Failure to document or publicise the territorial/functional appointment may result in unlawful exercise claims.

Discrepancy in penalties and confidentiality

• Low confidentiality penalty. The penalty for unlawful disclosure of confidential information by security officers is only up to 5 penalty units (s 24(2)). Given the sensitivity of information related to court security or non-public proceedings, the relatively low penalty could be seen as an inadequate deterrent and might not reflect potential harm.
• Interaction with evidence preservation. Security officers can seize devices and copy recordings (s 15(5)), but those powers intersect with privacy and evidence rules. Copies made by security officers may later be used in criminal proceedings, but the Act does not specify retention periods, access rights or disclosure procedures for such copies beyond handing to police. This could lead to procedural and discovery disputes.

Care facilities exclusion

• Act does not apply by default. Proceedings conducted at care or treatment facilities are excluded unless the facility manager agrees with the relevant court official that the Act will apply (s 25). This requires proactive agreements; otherwise standard security powers will not be available in those contexts, potentially creating safety gaps or confusion when proceedings involve vulnerable persons.

Return and handover criteria for seized objects

• Security officer discretion for handing to police. Section 16 gives the security officer discretion to return objects unless the officer has reasonable cause to believe the object is required as evidence, the person is not legally entitled to possess it, or it may be used imminently to commit an offence (s 16(b)(iii)-(v)). The "reasonable cause" standard will require contemporaneous documentation to support a handover to police and to justify retention if challenged.

Delegated instruments and administrative risk

• Rules and regulations required for operational detail. Much of the Act anticipates subordinate instruments under ss 30-31. If rules, guidelines and regulations are not promptly developed, operational uncertainty will persist around search techniques, evidence handling, identity verification standards, staff training and record-keeping. That delay is a compliance risk for courts and appointing authorities.

In summary, the principal practical gotchas are: the expansive definition of court premises and principal court premises; the broad device and publication restrictions and the powers to seize and delete material; the conditional and narrow definition of "journalist"; practical uncertainties in gender-based search conduct and "if practicable" standards; delegation and appointment clarity for private security; a relatively modest confidentiality penalty; and the need for subordinate instruments to provide operational detail. Each of these points should be addressed by rules, standard operating procedures and training to reduce legal and compliance risk.

This section sets out a practical compliance blueprint for courts, appointing officers, security personnel, counsel, journalists and court users. Each step is grounded in the operative provisions of the Act.

Governance and appointment

• Issue and document appointments and instruments. Appoint security officers and security managers using formal instruments that state powers and any limiting conditions, as authorised by ss 4(6) and 6(6). Keep written instruments on file and publish or circulate the scope of a security officer’s appointment to court staff and contracted security providers to ensure limits required by s 23 are observed.
• Identity cards. Issue identity cards in the form approved by the appointing officer containing the person’s name or unique ID code and stating they are a security officer or manager, and require visible display while exercising powers (s 7(1), (3)). Implement a return process when appointments end (s 7(2)).

Policy, rules and training

• Draft rules and guidelines. Use s 30 to prepare court-specific directions and rules that operationalise the Act for your court or tribunal. Rules should cover: identity verification standards, search protocols, recording and seizure procedures, deletion protocols, evidentiary chain-of-custody, interactions with police, and criteria for closure orders under s 9.
• Provide staff training. Train security officers, managers, registrars and contracted guards on the Act’s search requirements (s 13), seizure powers (s 15), identity disclosure rules (s 14), removal and arrest powers (ss 17-18), confidentiality obligations (s 24), and use-of-force limits (s 21). Include simulated scenarios for remote hearings and for searches involving children and trans persons to ensure "practicable" accommodations are documented.
• Standard operating procedures for private providers. If engaging security agents under s 5, include contractual obligations for compliance with the Act, training requirements, indemnities and record-keeping obligations; ensure the appointing officer issues the necessary instrument of appointment so the private guard is lawfully a "security officer" under the Act.

Search, seizure and disposal protocols

• Written search policy. Develop a practical search checklist that mirrors s 13: ensure searches are expeditious, provide reasonable privacy, ask whether the person has prohibited objects and offer the opportunity to produce items, offer private searches, and limit presence to no more than two persons where removal of clothing occurs (s 13(2)-(4)).
• Gender-sensitive procedures. For searches involving removal of clothing, document steps taken to locate a security officer of the same gender or the gender requested by a transsexual, transgender person, and document reasons if that was not practicable (s 13(5)). For children under 10, ensure female officers are available or have an escalation plan (s 13(6)).
• Vehicle and personal effects searches. Provide signage at access points explaining that vehicle stoppage and searches may be required and that security officers may request deposit of items (ss 12, 15). Provide a recorded process for requests to deposit devices, a clear receipt system for deposited items, and secure storage with defined retention periods consistent with rules and regulations (s 15(1)-(3)).

Electronic devices, recordings and publication

• Signage and communications. Post clear notices that use of electronic and recording devices in principal court premises is prohibited except where expressly authorised and set out how persons can seek permission (s 11(2)-(4)). Define "principal court premises" in practice: courtrooms, remote hearing locations and places where evidence is taken (s 11(1)).
• Permission and accreditation workflow. Create a defined process for judicial officers to grant express permission for device use under s 11(4)(a). Implement accreditation for legal practitioners, court officers and authorised journalists that allows them to show documentary evidence to security officers when required under s 15(3)(b).
• Evidence handling and deletion protocols. Draft a clear policy for seizure, copying, retention, deletion and handover to police in line with ss 15-16. Require contemporaneous, written records of reasons for seizure and for any deletion of images or sounds under s 15(6). Where deletion is necessary, record authorisation by the judicial officer or security manager and retain metadata where possible to preserve transparency.

Identity verification and access control

• Proof standards. Specify what constitutes "satisfactory proof" for persons claiming to be legal practitioners, police officers or public servants acting in the course of duty under s 14(4). Acceptable documents should be listed in rules or guidelines and staff trained to verify them quickly to avoid unnecessary escalation.
• Visitor logs and refusal handling. Maintain visitor logs where identity disclosure is required and create a standard "request to leave" procedure that allows persons to avoid offences under s 14(3) and s 15(3)(a) by leaving the premises as soon as practicable if they decline to provide identity or deposit devices.

Record-keeping, confidentiality and access

• Confidentiality compliance. Implement secure records management for confidential information and limit disclosure to what is necessary for functions or as authorised under s 24(3). Given the low statutory penalty for unlawful disclosure (s 24(2)), adopt internal disciplinary and civil risk mitigation measures to deter improper handling.
• Audit trails. Keep auditable logs of all searches, seizures, detentions, arrests, device copies, deletions and handovers to police. Tag each record with the authorising security officer or manager, the appointing instrument, the stated grounds and the identity of witnesses or accompanying persons.

Escalation and police liaison

• Police protocols. Set a protocol for when seized items must be handed to police (s 16(b)(i)-(ii)) and for prompt transfer of arrested persons to police (s 18(4)). Maintain a direct liaison channel with police for urgent handovers and evidence transfer.
• Use-of-force and restraint policy. Create a restraint policy consistent with s 21’s "reasonable force" test and with correctional and police standards where restraints are used. Document justification for force used, injuries, and witness statements.

Regulation, rules and continuous improvement

• Use delegated rule-making powers. Courts should promptly make rules under s 30 and engage in consultative drafting to fill operational gaps in the Act. Regulations under s 31 should be sought to address matters such as defined detention periods for devices, storage standards, and delegation mechanics.
• Training and review cycle. Implement periodic reviews of operating procedures, using incident reports and audits to improve compliance. Update training whenever new regulations or guidelines are issued.

Special contexts and exclusions

• Care facility proceedings. Where proceedings are to be conducted at care or treatment facilities, proactively negotiate and document agreements with facility managers and the Registrar/Administrator/Chief Clerk or Head of Agency as required under s 25 to ensure the Act will apply when necessary.
• Contract terms with private security providers. Contracts made under s 5 should require compliance with statutory procedures, indemnities, evidence handling, training standards and the requirement that appointing officers issue formal appointment instruments to contracted guards.

Communications with the public

• Clear public notices. Provide accessible information on the court website and at court entrances summarising device restrictions, deposit procedures, identity requirements and the status of journalist access under ss 8 and 11. This reduces confrontations and makes compliance more predictable for visitors.

By implementing these steps, appointing authorities and court administrators convert the Act’s statutory framework into operational procedures that will reduce legal and compliance risk and provide transparency and due process to court users. Each measure above maps directly to the Act provisions cited, and subordinate rules should be used to fill the operational detail the statute leaves to courts and regulations.