The Act defines a surveillance device in the Dictionary to mean a data surveillance device, a listening device, an optical surveillance device, a tracking device, a combination of any two or more of those devices, or a device of a kind prescribed by regulation. A listening device is a device capable of being used to overhear, record, monitor or listen to a conversation or words spoken, but does not include a hearing aid or similar device used to overcome impairment. An optical surveillance device is a device capable of being used to record visually or observe an activity, but does not include spectacles, contact lenses or a similar device used for impaired sight. A tracking device is an electronic device capable of being used to work out or monitor the location of a person or object or the status of an object. A data surveillance device is a device or program capable of being used to record or monitor the input of information into or the output of information from a computer, but does not include an optical surveillance device.

There are two types of warrant under Part 2. A surveillance device warrant may authorise the use of a device on stated premises, in or on a stated object or class of objects, or in relation to the conversations, activities or geographical location of a stated person (or a person whose identity is unknown). Section 15 sets out the extensive powers that such a warrant confers, including entry by force if necessary, installation, use and maintenance of enhancement equipment, temporary removal of an object or vehicle, breaking open anything, connecting the device to an electricity supply or transmission system, and doing anything reasonably necessary to conceal the fact that anything has been done. The warrant must contain the matters listed in section 14, including the period of validity (not more than 90 days), the kind of device authorised, and any conditions.

A retrieval warrant is a separate type of warrant that authorises the retrieval of a surveillance device that was lawfully installed under a surveillance device warrant but is still on premises or in or on an object. Section 23 authorises entry by force, breaking open anything, temporary removal of an object, and the provision of assistance or technical expertise. For a tracking device, the retrieval warrant also authorises the use of the tracking device and enhancement equipment solely for the purposes of location and retrieval. Section 22 requires the warrant to state the period (not more than 90 days) and other particulars.

An emergency authorisation under Part 3 is not a warrant but a direction given by the chief officer of a law enforcement agency. Section 25 provides for an emergency authorisation when there is an imminent threat of serious violence to a person or substantial damage to property, the use of a device is immediately necessary to deal with that threat, the circumstances are so serious and urgent that use is warranted, and it is not practicable to apply for a surveillance device warrant. Section 26 provides for a separate emergency authorisation when use of a device in the ACT is already authorised under a territory law and the investigation is likely to extend to a participating jurisdiction, and use in that jurisdiction is immediately necessary to prevent loss of evidence.

Protected information under Division 5.1 is defined in section 33 to mean any information obtained from the use of a surveillance device under a warrant, emergency authorisation, corresponding warrant or corresponding emergency authorisation, and any information relating to the application for, issue of, existence of or expiry of such warrant or authorisation. The prohibition on communication or publication in section 34 criminalises unauthorised dealings with protected information.

Corresponding warrant and corresponding emergency authorisation refer to warrants or authorisations issued under the provisions of a law of another jurisdiction that correspond to Part 2 or Part 3 of the Act respectively. Section 31 allows a corresponding warrant to be executed in the ACT as if it were a warrant issued under Part 2. Section 32 allows a corresponding emergency authorisation to have effect in the ACT as if it were an emergency authorisation under Part 3.

Law enforcement agency is defined in the Dictionary to mean the Australian Federal Police, the Australian Crime Commission, or the integrity commission. Law enforcement officer includes a police officer, a member of staff of the Australian Crime Commission, an investigator under the Integrity Commission Act 2018, and a person seconded to a law enforcement agency, including a member of another jurisdiction’s police force. Chief officer means the chief police officer for the AFP, the chief executive officer of the ACC, or the integrity commissioner.

Relevant offence is defined in the Dictionary as an offence against an ACT law punishable by imprisonment of three years or more, or an offence against an ACT law prescribed by regulation. Relevant proceeding includes prosecutions, confiscation proceedings, child protection proceedings, disciplinary proceedings against a public officer, coronial inquests, extradition proceedings and proceedings before the International Criminal Court.

The Act directly affects law enforcement agencies and their officers operating within the ACT. The three designated law enforcement agencies are the Australian Federal Police, the Australian Crime Commission and the integrity commission. Law enforcement officers within those agencies - police officers, ACC staff, and integrity commission investigators - are the persons who may apply for warrants under Part 2 and who may receive emergency authorisations under Part 3. The Act also affects persons seconded to these agencies, such as police officers from other jurisdictions, who are deemed law enforcement officers by the Dictionary definition. The chief officer of each agency bears specific statutory responsibilities, including the duty to apply to a judge for approval within two working days after giving an emergency authorisation (section 27), the duty to discontinue use of a device once satisfied it is no longer necessary (section 18), the duty to keep warrants, applications and registers (sections 39, 40, 41), and the duty to provide annual reports to the Minister (section 38).

Judges and magistrates are the issuing authorities for warrants. Section 10 provides that a judge may issue any warrant under Part 2. A magistrate may issue a surveillance device warrant that authorises the use of a tracking device only, and a retrieval warrant in relation to a tracking device if a magistrate issued the original warrant. This division of authority was introduced by the Crimes Legislation Amendment Act 2018 (No 2), as reflected in the amendment history at endnote 4. A judge alone is the decision-maker for applications for approval of emergency authorisations under Part 3.

Members of the public whose conversations, activities, geographical location or property are subject to surveillance under a warrant or emergency authorisation are directly affected. Section 13(2) requires the judge or magistrate, when deciding whether to issue a surveillance device warrant, to have regard to the extent to which the privacy of any person is likely to be affected. The Act does not give any right of prior notification to the subject of a warrant, but the reporting and record-keeping provisions indirectly affect those persons because their names must be recorded in certain circumstances: section 40(c)(iv) requires the chief officer to record the name, if known, of any person whose conversations or activities were overheard, recorded, monitored, listened to or observed by use of a device under a warrant, and section 40(c)(v) requires the name of any person whose geographical location was worked out by use of a tracking device.

The ombudsman is given a specific inspection role under section 42. The ombudsman may inspect the records of a law enforcement agency to determine the extent of compliance with the Act. The ombudsman must give a report on each inspection under the Annual Reports (Government Agencies) Act 2004.

The Minister and the Legislative Assembly are affected by the annual reporting obligations in section 38. The chief officer must give a written report to the Minister as soon as practicable after the end of each financial year, and in any event within three months. The Minister must present a copy to the Legislative Assembly within 15 sitting days after receiving it.

Persons who come into possession of protected information are affected by the strict prohibition in section 34. Any person - not just law enforcement officers - commits an offence if they use, communicate or publish protected information in a way not permitted by that section. This affects journalists, lawyers, court staff, and any other person who might receive such information in the course of proceedings or otherwise.

Body-worn cameras under Part 5A specifically affect police officers, who are required to use the camera when dealing with a member of the public in the course of their duties, subject to the exceptions in section 43B(3). Members of the public who interact with police may be recorded, and the Act requires that use be overt in most circumstances, meaning they should be aware they are being recorded.

The Act imposes key duties on law enforcement officers and chief officers, and confers certain rights on those executing warrants or emergency authorisations.

Duty to apply for warrants. A law enforcement officer may apply for a surveillance device warrant if the officer suspects or believes on reasonable grounds that a relevant offence or corrupt conduct has been, is being, is about to be or is likely to be committed, and that the use of a surveillance device is necessary for the investigation (section 11(1)). The application must be supported by an affidavit setting out the grounds, but section 11(4) permits an unsworn application if the officer believes immediate use is necessary and it is impracticable to prepare or swear an affidavit beforehand. In that case, the applicant must give as much information as reasonably practicable and within 72 hours send a sworn affidavit to the judge or magistrate. For retrieval warrants, section 19 contains equivalent provisions.

Duty to seek approval for emergency authorisations. Section 27(1) requires the chief officer to apply to a judge for approval within two working days after giving an emergency authorisation. The application must be supported by an affidavit setting out the grounds. The judge may refuse to consider the application until the applicant gives all required information.

Duty to discontinue use. Section 18 imposes a duty on the chief officer to take steps to discontinue use of a surveillance device as soon as practicable if satisfied that its use is no longer necessary for the purpose of enabling evidence to be obtained of the commission of the relevant offence or corrupt conduct or the identity or location of the offender. The chief officer must also ensure an application is made for revocation of the warrant under section 17. If the warrant is revoked, the chief officer must ensure use is discontinued immediately. The law enforcement officer to whom the warrant is issued must tell the chief officer immediately if the officer believes use is no longer necessary.

Duty to keep records. Section 39 requires the chief officer to keep every warrant issued and emergency authorisation given, each application, and each evidentiary certificate. Section 40 requires the chief officer to keep detailed records about each warrant and emergency authorisation, including statements about whether the warrant was executed, the kind of device used, the period of use, names of persons affected, details of premises and objects, benefit to the investigation, compliance with conditions, and details of any amendment or extension. Section 41 requires a register of warrants and emergency authorisations.

Duty to destroy records. Section 35(1)(b) requires the chief officer to destroy every record or report obtained by use of a surveillance device if satisfied that it is not likely to be required in connection with a permitted purpose under section 34(6) or (7). This does not apply to records or reports received into evidence in legal proceedings or disciplinary proceedings.

Duty to report annually. Section 38 requires the chief officer to give a written report to the Minister each financial year containing statistical information on applications, warrants, emergency authorisations, refusals, extensions, arrests and prosecutions.

Duty to cooperate with ombudsman. Section 42(3) requires the chief officer to ensure that members of staff give the ombudsman any assistance reasonably required to exercise functions under the inspection provisions.

Rights conferred by warrants. Section 15 confers extensive rights on law enforcement officers executing a surveillance device warrant, including the right to enter premises by force if necessary, to install, use and maintain the device and enhancement equipment, to break open anything, to temporarily remove an object or vehicle, to connect the device to an electricity supply or transmission system, and to do anything reasonably necessary to conceal that anything has been done. Section 23 confers equivalent rights for retrieval warrants. These rights are subject to any conditions stated in the warrant.

Right to object to disclosure of technology. Section 36 allows a person in any proceeding to object to the disclosure of information on the ground that it could reasonably be expected to reveal details of surveillance device technology or methods of installation, use or retrieval. If the ground is made out, the person conducting the proceeding may order that the information not be disclosed. The court must take into account whether disclosure is necessary for a fair trial or in the public interest.

Rights of the subject of surveillance. The Act does not confer a right of prior notification or a right to challenge a warrant before it is executed. However, the Act preserves the court’s discretion to admit or exclude evidence and to stay criminal proceedings in the interests of justice (section 7(4)). The protections in section 34 restrict the dissemination of protected information, which can indirectly protect the subject’s privacy. Section 37 provides that a person is not entitled to search any protected information in the custody of a court unless the court otherwise orders in the interests of justice.

The Act creates several offences, primarily around the misuse of protected information. Section 34(1) makes it an offence for a person to use protected information where that use is not permitted by the section and the person is reckless about the lack of permission. The maximum penalty is imprisonment for 2 years. Section 34(2) makes it an offence to communicate protected information in the same circumstances, and section 34(3) makes it an offence to publish it, each carrying the same maximum penalty of 2 years imprisonment. The fault element for these offences is recklessness, which under the Criminal Code can be satisfied by proof of intention, knowledge or recklessness (see endnote to section 34).

Section 34(4) creates an aggravated offence where the person commits an offence against subsection (1), (2) or (3) in circumstances where the person intends to endanger the health or safety of anyone, or is reckless about whether the disclosure endangers anyone’s health or safety. The maximum penalty for this aggravated form is imprisonment for 10 years. Section 34(5) creates a similar aggravated offence where the person intends to prejudice the effective conduct of an investigation, or is reckless about whether the disclosure prejudices the effective conduct of an investigation, also carrying a maximum penalty of 10 years imprisonment.

Permitted uses and communications are set out in section 34(6) and (7). The prohibition does not apply to information that has been disclosed in open court proceedings or that has entered the public domain. Information may be used or communicated if the person believes on reasonable grounds that it is necessary to help prevent or reduce the risk of serious violence or substantial property damage. It may be communicated to the Director-General of ASIO if it relates to activities prejudicial to security. It may be used or communicated for purposes including the investigation of a relevant offence or corrupt conduct, making decisions about prosecutions, relevant proceedings, investigations of complaints against public officers, keeping records and making reports under Division 5.2, inspections by the ombudsman, and investigations under privacy laws.

Important restrictions apply to emergency authorisations: section 34(8) provides that the permitted use, communication or publication for investigation or prosecution purposes does not apply unless the use of powers under the emergency authorisation has been approved by a judge under section 29 or under a corresponding provision of a corresponding law. Similarly, section 43(3) provides that an evidentiary certificate is not admissible in evidence to the extent that it sets out facts relating to an emergency authorisation unless that authorisation has been approved.

The enforcement of the Act is primarily through the ombudsman’s inspection powers under section 42. The ombudsman may inspect records of law enforcement agencies to determine the extent of compliance. The ombudsman has the right to enter premises after notifying the chief officer, full and free access to records, and may require staff to give information. The ombudsman must report on the comprehensiveness and adequacy of the agency’s records and the cooperation given. The report must not include information that could endanger a person’s safety, prejudice an investigation or prosecution, or compromise operational activities or methodologies.

The Act also provides for evidentiary certificates under section 43. The chief officer or a person assisting may issue a certificate setting out facts relevant to anything done in connection with the execution of a warrant or in accordance with an emergency authorisation, or in connection with the communication, use, recording or custody of information. A certificate purporting to be issued is admissible in evidence in any proceeding, subject to the restriction for unapproved emergency authorisations.

The regulation-making power in section 45 allows the Executive to make regulations for the Act, which may create offences with maximum penalties of not more than 10 penalty units. At the republication date, one penalty unit is $160 for an individual and $810 for a corporation, as stated in the republication page.

Section 7(1) of the Act provides that the Act (other than Part 5A on body-worn cameras) does not affect any other territory law that prohibits or regulates the use of surveillance devices wholly within the ACT. This means that existing ACT laws on privacy, trespass, listening devices or other regulatory schemes continue to operate in parallel. A law enforcement officer must still comply with other territory laws, unless the warrant or emergency authorisation provides a specific exception. The Act does not purport to override other territory laws; it operates alongside them.

Section 7(3) provides that the Act does not stop a law enforcement officer from using an optical surveillance device in a place where the presence of a police officer is not an offence. This means that even without a warrant, a police officer may use an optical surveillance device (such as binoculars or a video camera) in a public place where the officer is lawfully present, because the Act does not prohibit that use. This is consistent with the common law position that police may observe what is visible from a public place.

Section 7(4) preserves the court’s discretion to admit or exclude evidence in any proceeding and to stay criminal proceedings in the interests of justice. This means that even if evidence was obtained in technical compliance with the Act, a court may still exclude it if it would be unfair to admit it, or if it would be an abuse of process. Conversely, evidence obtained outside the Act may still be admissible if the court exercises its discretion in favour of admission.

Section 7(5) makes clear that a warrant or emergency authorisation may be issued in the ACT for the installation, use, maintenance or retrieval of a device in the ACT, in a participating jurisdiction, or in both. This gives the Act extra-territorial application in the sense that an ACT warrant may authorise activities in another state or territory if that jurisdiction has a corresponding law. However, the practical effect depends on the recognition provisions in Part 4, which allow corresponding warrants and authorisations to be executed in the ACT.

Section 7(6) excludes the operation of the Freedom of Information Act 2016 and the Territory Records Act 2002 in relation to activities, documents and records under the Act. This means that documents and records created under the Act are not subject to FOI requests and are not covered by the Territory Records Act’s requirements for preservation and disposal. The Act itself provides its own record-keeping and destruction regime in Division 5.2, which overrides those general statutes.

Section 15(7) provides that nothing in section 15 authorises the doing of anything for which a warrant would be required under the Telecommunications (Interception and Access) Act 1979 (Cwlth). That Commonwealth Act regulates the interception of telecommunications. The ACT Act does not authorise the interception of telephone calls or other telecommunications in a manner that would require a warrant under Commonwealth law. This is a critical interaction: an ACT surveillance device warrant cannot authorise what would be an illegal interception under Commonwealth legislation.

The Act also interacts with the Integrity Commission Act 2018. Section 6(a) and other provisions refer to corrupt conduct as defined in the Integrity Commission Act 2018. The integrity commission is a law enforcement agency under the Act, but Part 3 (emergency authorisations) does not apply to it: section 24A provides that Part 3 does not apply to a law enforcement agency that is the integrity commission. This means the integrity commission cannot use the emergency authorisation mechanism; it must rely on warrants under Part 2.

Part 4 interacts with corresponding laws of other jurisdictions. Section 31 allows a corresponding warrant to be executed in the ACT in accordance with its terms as if it were an ACT warrant. Section 32 allows a corresponding emergency authorisation to have effect in the ACT. This creates a regime of mutual recognition, but only if the other jurisdiction’s law corresponds to the ACT Act. The regulation-making power in section 45 can declare a law of another jurisdiction to correspond to the Act.

The Act was originally enacted as A2010-23, notified on 7 July 2010, with the substantive provisions commencing on 7 January 2011. Since then it has been amended by a series of Acts, as set out in endnote 4.

The Statute Law Amendment Act 2014 (A2014-18) made minor amendments, including to section 16 (extension and amendment of surveillance device warrant) and the Dictionary (definition of unsworn application substituted). The Justice and Community Safety Legislation Amendment Act 2014 (No 2) (A2014-49) amended section 34 (prohibition on communication or publication of protected information) and renumbered paragraphs.

The Crimes Legislation Amendment Act 2015 (A2015-3) amended section 22 (what must a retrieval warrant contain). The Freedom of Information Act 2016 (A2016-55) amended section 7 to add the exclusion of FOI and Territory Records Acts, effective 1 January 2018.

The Justice and Community Safety Legislation Amendment Act 2017 (No 2) (A2017-14) amended the commencement of the FOI Act amendments. The Crimes Legislation Amendment Act 2018 (No 2) (A2018-40) amended section 10 (who may issue warrants) to allow a magistrate to issue a surveillance device warrant that authorises the use of a tracking device only, and a retrieval warrant in relation to a tracking device if a magistrate issued the original warrant. It also inserted a definition of judge in the Dictionary, which was later omitted by A2023-37.

The Integrity Commission Act 2018 (A2018-52) made numerous amendments: it amended section 6 (purposes) to include corrupt conduct; amended section 8 (investigation taken to be conducted in ACT); amended sections 11, 13, 14, 18; inserted section 24A (application of Part 3 - integrity commission) to exclude the integrity commission from Part 3; amended section 34 to add references to corrupt conduct; amended section 36 (protection of surveillance device technologies and methods); amended section 44 (delegation) to include the integrity commissioner; amended the Dictionary to add the definition of corrupt conduct, amend the definition of law enforcement agency to include the integrity commission, and amend the definition of law enforcement officer to include an integrity commission investigator. These amendments commenced on 1 December 2019.

The Integrity Commission Amendment Act 2019 (A2019-18) further amended the commencement of the Integrity Commission Act 2018 amendments.

The Crimes Legislation Amendment Act 2021 (No 2) (A2021-18) inserted Part 5A (body-worn cameras), including sections 43A, 43B and 43C. This commenced on 11 February 2022. It also amended section 6 (purposes) to include body-worn cameras and amended section 7 (relationship to other laws) to exclude Part 5A from the operation of section 7(1). The Dictionary was amended to insert the definition of body-worn camera.

The Justice and Community Safety Legislation Amendment Act 2021 (No 2) (A2021-33) amended section 44 (delegation) to include the integrity commissioner’s delegation powers.

The Courts Legislation Amendment Act 2023 (A2023-37) amended section 10 and omitted the definition of judge from the Dictionary, effective 30 September 2023. This is the last amendment reflected in Republication No 10.

The Act contains no express reference to any litigation or cases. The source provided does not include any case citations, judicial interpretation or references to litigation. It is therefore not possible to state that any particular case has been decided under the Act based solely on the source. The Act itself preserves the court’s discretion in evidentiary matters: section 7(4) provides that the Act does not limit a court’s discretion to admit or exclude evidence in any proceeding or to stay criminal proceedings in the interests of justice. This preserves the court’s inherent powers and common law discretion, which means that any litigation involving evidence obtained under the Act would involve application of those general principles.

Section 36 allows a person in any proceeding to object to disclosure of information that could reveal details of surveillance device technology or methods. This provision has the potential to be litigated in cases where a defendant seeks access to information about how a surveillance device was used in their case. The court must balance the need for a fair trial against the public interest in protecting law enforcement methods.

The evidentiary certificate provisions in section 43 are designed to facilitate proof of matters without calling witnesses. Section 43(2) provides that a certificate is admissible in evidence in any proceeding, but section 43(3) restricts admissibility for emergency authorisations that have not been approved by a judge. This could be the subject of litigation if a party challenges the validity or sufficiency of a certificate.

Section 30 provides that evidence obtained under an approved emergency authorisation is not inadmissible only because the evidence was obtained before the approval. This provision may be relevant in criminal proceedings where the defence argues that evidence was obtained unlawfully because it was obtained before judicial approval was granted. The Act expressly addresses this by providing that the timing of approval does not render the evidence inadmissible.

The Act’s interaction with the Telecommunications (Interception and Access) Act 1979 (Cwlth) as stated in section 15(7) could give rise to litigation where an accused person argues that evidence obtained under an ACT warrant involves an unlawful interception under Commonwealth law.

In the absence of any case law provided in the source, no further litigation history can be stated.

Practitioners should be alert to several provisions that can catch out the unwary. The most critical time limit is in section 27(1): after giving an emergency authorisation, the chief officer must apply to a judge for approval within two working days. Failure to do so could result in the judge later ordering that use of the device cease and that any information obtained be dealt with in a specified manner under section 29(4) or (5). Even if approval is later obtained, section 34(8) prohibits the use, communication or publication of protected information relating to an emergency authorisation unless the use of powers has been approved. This means that information obtained under an unapproved emergency authorisation cannot be used for investigation or prosecution purposes.

The 72-hour rule for unsworn warrant applications in sections 11(5) and 19(5) is similarly strict. If a law enforcement officer makes an unsworn application because immediate use is necessary, a sworn affidavit must be sent to the judge or magistrate within 72 hours after making the application, whether or not a warrant was issued. If this is not done, the warrant may be invalid or the evidence obtained may be challenged.

The limited issuing authority for magistrates under section 10 is a important restriction. A magistrate may issue only a surveillance device warrant that authorises the use of a tracking device only, and a retrieval warrant in relation to a tracking device if a magistrate issued the original warrant. For any other surveillance device - such as a listening device or optical device - only a judge may issue the warrant. Practitioners must ensure they apply to the correct issuing authority. If a warrant is issued by a magistrate for a device other than a tracking device, it is likely invalid.

The definition of relevant offence in the Dictionary is an offence against an ACT law punishable by imprisonment of three years or more, or an offence prescribed by regulation. This is a relatively high threshold. Minor offences punishable by less than three years imprisonment cannot be the basis for a warrant unless they are prescribed by regulation. When making an application, the officer must ensure that the offence under investigation meets this threshold.

The body-worn camera provisions in Part 5A contain a mandatory obligation that may not be immediately obvious. Section 43B(2) states that a police officer who is wearing a body-worn camera must use the camera when dealing with a member of the public in the course of the officer’s duties. This is a positive duty, not merely a permission. However, the exceptions in section 43B(3) are limited to when use is not reasonably practicable, could cause or increase a risk to safety, or would unreasonably limit a person’s privacy. Failure to use the camera in circumstances that do not fall within an exception could lead to disciplinary consequences, although the Act does not create a specific criminal offence for this failure.

The interplay between Part 5A and the rest of the Act is unusual. Section 43B(7) provides that Parts 2 to 5 do not apply in relation to the use of a body-worn camera under that section. This means that warrant requirements, restrictions on use of protected information, and record-keeping obligations under Division 5.2 do not apply to body-worn camera recordings. However, the chief police officer must make guidelines under section 43C that include requirements for storage, use and disposal of recordings. Practitioners should not assume that the general provisions of the Act apply to body-worn camera footage.

The delegation power in section 44 is extremely limited. Functions of a chief officer under the Act must not be delegated to any other person except as provided by that section. A chief officer may delegate only to a senior officer of the law enforcement agency: for the AFP, a police officer of the rank of commander or higher; for the ACC, the Director National Operations, a Director, or an office prescribed by regulation; for the integrity commission, a position prescribed by regulation. No other delegation is permitted.

The exclusion of the FOI Act and Territory Records Act by section 7(6) means that documents and records under the Act are not subject to FOI requests and are not covered by the Territory Records Act’s disposal regime. The Act’s own record-keeping and destruction provisions in sections 35 and 39-41 are the sole applicable framework. A person seeking access to such records cannot rely on FOI legislation; they must look to any other applicable law or court order.

Section 37 provides that a person is not entitled to search any protected information in the custody of a court unless the court otherwise orders in the interests of justice. This restricts access to surveillance device records even after they have been filed in court proceedings, unless a judge orders otherwise.

For law enforcement agencies and officers, compliance begins before any surveillance operation. Before applying for a warrant, the law enforcement officer must ensure that they have reasonable grounds to suspect or believe that a relevant offence or corrupt conduct has been, is being, is about to be or is likely to be committed, and that the use of a surveillance device is necessary for the investigation. The application must be supported by an affidavit setting out the grounds, unless an urgent oral application is necessary. For surveillance device warrants, the application must state the nature and duration of the warrant sought and the kind of surveillance device. For remote applications, the applicant must send a copy of the affidavit, whether sworn or unsworn, if fax is available.

If an emergency authorisation is used, the chief officer must apply to a judge for approval within two working days. The application must be supported by an affidavit setting out the grounds on which the approval is sought. The judge will consider specific factors under section 28, including the nature of the risk, whether alternative methods could have been used, and whether it was practicable to apply for a warrant. If the judge does not approve, the judge may order that use cease and may direct how information obtained is to be dealt with.

Once a warrant is issued, the officer executing it must comply with any conditions stated in the warrant. The warrant must be executed within the period stated (not more than 90 days). If the officer believes that use of the device is no longer necessary for the purpose of enabling evidence to be obtained of the commission of the offence or corrupt conduct, the officer must tell the chief officer immediately, and the chief officer must take steps to discontinue use and apply for revocation of the warrant.

After the operation, the chief officer must ensure that every record or report obtained is kept in a secure place not accessible to people not entitled to deal with it. Records and reports must be destroyed if the chief officer is satisfied they are not likely to be required for a permitted purpose. The chief officer must keep all warrants, notices of revocation, emergency authorisations, applications and copies of certificates. Detailed records under section 40 must be maintained, including statements about execution, the kind of device used, the period of use, names of persons affected, details of premises and objects, the benefit to the investigation, compliance with conditions, and details of any amendment or extension. A register under section 41 must be kept showing the date of issue, the issuing judge or magistrate, the officer primarily responsible, the relevant offence, the period of validity, and details of amendments or extensions.

The annual report under section 38 must be given to the Minister as soon as practicable after the end of each financial year, and in any event within three months. The Minister must present it to the Legislative Assembly within 15 sitting days. The report must include the number of applications, warrants, emergency authorisations, remote applications, refusals, extensions, arrests and prosecutions. The information must be presented in a way that identifies each different kind of surveillance device.

For non-law enforcement persons who come into possession of protected information - such as lawyers, journalists or court staff - compliance requires strict adherence to section 34. Protected information must not be used, communicated or published except as permitted. Permitted purposes include the investigation of relevant offences or corrupt conduct, decisions about prosecutions, relevant proceedings, investigations of complaints against public officers, keeping records and making reports under the Act, inspections by the ombudsman, and privacy investigations. Information that has been disclosed in open court or that has entered the public domain may be used. If a person believes on reasonable grounds that communication is necessary to prevent or reduce the risk of serious violence or substantial property damage, that use is permitted.

For police officers using body-worn cameras, compliance requires adherence to the guidelines made under section 43C. The camera must be used when dealing with a member of the public unless an exception applies. The use must be overt, meaning the camera should be visible or the person should be told that the camera is being used, unless the officer draws or uses a firearm or conducted electrical weapon, or overt use would increase a safety risk. The officer must ensure that the use is not covert except in those limited circumstances.