Criminal Investigation (Extra-territorial Offences) Act 1985

The Act defines several key terms that structure its operation. appropriate authority in relation to a State means an authority exercising functions corresponding to those of the Commissioner of Police in relation to the Northern Territory Police Force; in relation to the Australian Capital Territory it means the Commissioner of the Australian Federal Police. This ensures there is a designated receiver of transmitted objects on the other side of the ministerial arrangement. corresponding law means a law of a State or the Australian Capital Territory that the Administrator has declared by Gazette notice to be a corresponding law under subsection 3(3). This is the mechanism by which other jurisdictions opt into the scheme: they must have a law that is recognised as corresponding, and the Administrator makes a formal declaration. object includes money and money’s worth, so the power extends beyond tangible physical items to monetary instruments and possibly digital assets if they can be seized in a physical form. offence to which this Act applies is defined as an indictable offence against the law of a reciprocating State that arises from an act, omission, event or state of affairs which, if done or occurring in the Territory, would attract criminal liability under the law of the Territory. This dual criminality requirement ensures that only conduct that is also an offence in the Northern Territory can be investigated using this Act, preventing the NT from being used to assist in investigating conduct that the Territory itself does not criminalise. The offence must be indictable, not a summary offence, under the reciprocating State’s law. premises is defined broadly to include a building, structure or place (whether built upon or not, enclosed or unenclosed) and includes an aircraft, vessel and vehicle. This covers mobile assets, meaning a warrant could be executed on a car or boat. reciprocating State means a State or the Australian Capital Territory or another Territory (presumably other internal territories) in which a corresponding law is in force and in relation to which arrangements are in force under section 7. So two conditions must be satisfied: a declared corresponding law and an active ministerial arrangement for the transmission and return of objects. search warrant is defined as a warrant under this Act authorising a search of premises or a person. A warrant may relate to both premises and a person. owner of an object includes a person entitled to possession, not just legal title. telephone includes any telecommunication device, so modern communication methods such as video link would likely be captured, though the Act predates widespread digital communication and uses the older term. The concept of an object relevant to the investigation of the offence is fleshed out in subsection 3(2): a thing obtained by the commission of an offence, used for the purpose of committing an offence, in respect of which an offence has been committed, a thing that may afford evidence of the commission of an offence, or a thing intended to be used for the purpose of committing an offence. This is broad and covers proceeds, instrumentalities, evidence, and intended instrumentalities. Importantly, there is no requirement that the object be connected to the Territory; it need only be relevant to the investigation of the extra-territorial offence. The Act also distinguishes between the Local Court and a Local Court Judge. Section 3A clarifies that the jurisdiction conferred on the Local Court under this Act is part of the Court’s criminal jurisdiction, which affects procedural rules and appeal pathways.

The Act directly imposes obligations or confers powers on several categories of persons and entities. First, members of the Northern Territory Police Force are the only persons who may apply for a search warrant under section 4. They execute the warrant, may use reasonable force, seize objects, and must prepare and serve a notice on the occupier or person searched. Police also have the duty to forward an affidavit verifying grounds when a telephone warrant is obtained, and to deal with seized objects in accordance with ministerial arrangements. Second, Local Court Judges exercise the judicial function of issuing search warrants. They must be satisfied of reasonable grounds, and must file the warrant or a copy and the verifying affidavit in the Local Court. When receiving a telephone application, the Judge may not issue the warrant unless the applicant undertakes to provide a verifying affidavit; the Judge also notes the facts relied upon on the warrant. Third, the Commissioner of Police has specific duties under section 8 regarding returned objects: he must give notice to the person from whom the object was seized or to a person appearing to be the owner, requiring them to claim delivery. If no claim is made within 21 days of service, or if the person cannot be located after reasonable inquiry within the 28-day period, the object is forfeited to the Territory. The Commissioner also has power to retain objects required for investigation, return them, or refer claims to the Local Court. Fourth, owners and persons entitled to possession of objects seized are affected: they may receive a notice and must claim within 21 days or risk forfeiture. They may also have their property transmitted interstate without their consent, and then must track its return through the Commissioner. Fifth, occupiers of premises and persons searched are affected: they receive a notice of the warrant and a description of seized objects. They may have their premises forcibly entered and searched. Sixth, the Minister (presumably the NT Minister responsible for police) has power to enter into arrangements with ministers responsible for corresponding laws in other states and territories. These arrangements are the lynchpin of the reciprocity scheme and determine how objects are transmitted and returned. The Act does not prescribe the content of those arrangements, giving the Minister wide discretion. Seventh, the Administrator has power to declare a law of a State or ACT to be a corresponding law and to make regulations. The practical effect is that individuals whose property is seized under this Act may face the inconvenience and cost of dealing with a seizure that is ultimately for the benefit of another jurisdiction’s investigation. They cannot challenge the seizure in the other jurisdiction’s courts directly unless the objects are transmitted there; instead they must interact with the NT Commissioner and possibly the Local Court. Businesses operating across borders may find their premises in the NT subjected to search warrants based on allegations of offences in other states, with the potential for property to be removed from the Territory for extended periods. The Act thus imposes a compliance burden on those who own property in the NT or who are present in the NT, even if their alleged offending conduct occurred elsewhere.

Duties of the applicant police member. The applicant must verify the grounds of the application by affidavit under subsection 4(3). If applying by telephone, the applicant must inform the Judge of name, rank and number; the Judge is entitled to assume without further inquiry that the applicant is a member of the Police Force. The applicant must inform the Judge of the grounds; if the Judge indicates proper grounds exist, the applicant must undertake to make a verifying affidavit. The applicant must then forward that affidavit to the Judge as soon as practicable. After execution, the executing officer must prepare a notice in the prescribed form containing the officer’s name and rank, the name of the issuing Judge and the date and time of issue, and a description of all objects seized. The notice must be given to the occupier or left in a prominent position on the premises; if a person is searched, a copy of the notice must be given to that person. The officer must also deal with seized objects in accordance with the ministerial arrangements under section 7.

Duties of the Local Court Judge. The Judge must be satisfied that there are reasonable grounds to believe both that an offence to which this Act applies has been, is being or is intended to be committed, and that there is an object relevant to the investigation in or on premises or on a person. For telephone applications, the Judge must not issue the warrant unless the applicant gives an undertaking to verify the facts by affidavit. If the Judge does issue a telephone warrant, the Judge must note on the warrant the facts relied upon and must file the warrant or a copy and the verifying affidavit in the Local Court.

Duties of the Commissioner of Police under section 8. When an object seized under this Act and transmitted to the appropriate authority is returned to the Commissioner under the ministerial arrangement, the Commissioner must, within 28 days of receiving the object, issue a notice in writing requiring the person from whom it was seized or a person appearing to be the owner to claim delivery. If no claim is made within 21 days after service, or if the person cannot be located after reasonable inquiry within the 28 days, the object is forfeited to the Territory. If a claim is made, the Commissioner must either retain the object if required for an investigation, return it to the claimant, or refer the claim to the Local Court. The Commissioner is required to advise the claimant in writing of the action taken.

Rights of persons affected. The occupier or the person searched has a right to receive the notice described in subsection 6(5). A person from whom an object was seized, or a person appearing to be the owner, has a right to claim delivery of the object when it is returned from interstate. The claimant has a right to have the claim dealt with by the Commissioner: either return or referral to the Local Court. The Local Court may deal with the claim as if it were a claim under section 130B of the Local Court (Criminal Procedure) Act 1928, which provides a procedure for determining ownership. A person whose object is forfeited without notice or without reasonable inquiry may have grounds to challenge the forfeiture, though the Act does not expressly provide for judicial review other than through the referral mechanism. The protection for the Commissioner under section 9 is limited to criminal proceedings and only for acts or omissions done in good faith in the exercise or purported exercise of a power under section 8. This does not protect against civil proceedings, nor does it protect against criminal proceedings for acts not done in good faith. It also does not protect other police officers or the Minister. The Act does not confer any right to compensation for unlawful seizure or for property damage during execution, though general law remedies would remain available.

The Act itself does not create criminal penalties for non-compliance with its provisions. There is no offence for failing to comply with a search warrant, obstructing execution, or failing to claim property. The enforcement mechanism is primarily through the warrant itself: if a person obstructs the execution, they would likely face charges under other NT laws such as obstructing police. The most significant enforcement provision is the forfeiture regime in section 8(2): objects that are not claimed within 21 days after notice, or where the person cannot be located after reasonable inquiry, are forfeited to the Territory. Forfeited objects may be sold, destroyed or disposed of as prescribed or, if no manner is prescribed, as the Commissioner thinks fit. This gives the Commissioner broad discretion over the fate of unclaimed property, with no obligation to compensate the former owner. The Act does not set out any appeal or review process for forfeiture decisions, other than the possibility that a claim referred to the Local Court could raise issues. The Commissioner is protected from criminal proceedings for acts done in good faith under section 8, which may reduce the deterrent effect of criminal sanctions against improper forfeiture. However, the Commissioner could still face civil proceedings for conversion or trespass if acting beyond power or in bad faith. The Act does not specify any penalty for a police officer who makes a false or misleading statement in an application or who fails to forward a verifying affidavit. Such conduct would be governed by general criminal law (perjury, fabricating evidence) or police discipline codes. The short expiry periods (28 days for in-person warrants, 14 days for telephone warrants) act as a form of discipline on police to execute warrants promptly. If a warrant expires, a fresh application is required, increasing the cost of delay. The Act also does not provide for a remedy if an object is transmitted interstate and then lost or damaged, except to the extent that the ministerial arrangement may address liability. The lack of an express penalty for non-compliance with the notice requirements in section 6(5) (duty to prepare and give notice) means that a failure to give notice may not invalidate the warrant or the seizure, though it could give rise to a civil claim for trespass or conversion if the entry was not properly authorised. Courts might read the notice requirement as mandatory, but the Act does not state the consequence of non-compliance. Overall, the Act relies on external enforcement mechanisms rather than creating its own penalty structure.

The Act sits within a network of federal and state laws concerning cross-border criminal investigation. Most immediately, it interacts with the Police Administration Act 1978 (NT), under which the Commissioner of Police is appointed and the NT Police Force operates. The search warrant procedures in this Act are supplementary to the NT Police’s general powers of search and seizure under the Police Administration Act; the Act is a separate source of power specifically for extra-territorial offences. The Act also interacts with the Local Court (Criminal Procedure) Act 1928 (NT) through section 8(4), which provides that a claim referred to the Local Court under subsection 3(b)(ii) may be dealt with as if it were a claim made under section 130B of that Act. That section sets out the procedure for determining ownership of property in the Local Court. The Act also necessarily interacts with the corresponding laws of reciprocating States and the Australian Capital Territory. Those laws must be declared by the Administrator and must allow for reciprocal arrangements. The Act does not require those corresponding laws to be identical, only that they be declared. The ministerial arrangements under section 7 are themselves instruments that may have legal effect independent of the Act, but the Act provides the statutory authority for the Commissioner to transmit objects and for the Minister to enter into them. If a corresponding law is amended or repealed, the declaration may need to be updated. The Act also interacts with the Criminal Code and other NT offences insofar as the dual criminality test in the definition of “offence to which this Act applies” requires a hypothetical Territory offence. The Act does not displace the Mutual Assistance in Criminal Matters Act 1987 (Cth) or the Service and Execution of Process Act 1992 (Cth), which provide separate regimes for interstate law enforcement cooperation. This Act provides a more streamlined alternative: a NT warrant can be issued based on an interstate offence without the need for a formal mutual assistance request from the other jurisdiction. This reduces bureaucracy but also reduces the level of scrutiny that might apply under mutual assistance. The Act may also interact with the Criminal Property Forfeiture Act 2002 (NT) and similar forfeiture regimes in other states. Objects seized under this Act are held for the purpose of investigation or proceedings; if they are ultimately forfeited under a court order from the reciprocating state, the Act’s return mechanism (section 7(a)(ii)) excepts disposal by order or direction of a court. So objects may be disposed of by the court of the other jurisdiction, and the NT Commissioner would not be required to return them. The Act does not address priority between competing claims from the NT and the reciprocating state. The Act also has a limited interaction with the telecommunications interception and surveillance laws: it authorises search of premises and persons and seizure of objects, but does not authorise interception of communications or covert surveillance. Those activities require separate warrants under Commonwealth or NT law. The Act’s definition of “telephone includes any telecommunication device” may intersect with laws governing the use of such devices for warrant applications, but the Act does not impose any additional security or recording requirements.

The Criminal Investigation (Extra-territorial Offences) Act 1985 was originally enacted as Act No. 56 of 1985, assented to on 9 December 1985, and commenced on 1 January 1986 by Gazette notice. The Act has undergone three sets of amendments. The first amendment was by the Police Administration Amendment (Powers and Liability) Act 2005 (Act No. 11, 2005), assented on 17 March 2005 and commencing on 20 April 2005. This amendment affected section 9 (Protection of Commissioner), replacing the original provision with a narrower protection that shields the Commissioner from criminal proceedings only for acts or omissions done in good faith in the exercise or purported exercise of a power under section 8. Previously the section likely offered broader protection, though the source text does not reproduce the original. The amendment reflected a policy shift toward limiting statutory immunity for senior police officers. The second amendment was by the Local Court (Related Amendments) Act 2016 (Act No. 8, 2016), assented on 6 April 2016 and commencing on 1 May 2016. This was a part of the renaming of the Court of Summary Jurisdiction to the Local Court in the Northern Territory. The 2016 amendment inserted section 3A (Jurisdiction of Local Court), which clarifies that the jurisdiction conferred on the Local Court under this Act is part of the Court’s criminal jurisdiction. It also amended sections 4, 6, and 8 to replace references to “Court of Summary Jurisdiction” or “Stipendiary Magistrate” with “Local Court” and “Local Court Judge”. The functional effect was to modernise the terminology without changing the substantive law. The third set of amendments is listed in the endnotes as Interpretation Legislation Amendment Act 2018 (Act No. 22 of 2018), which made general amendments of a formal nature to sections 1, 3 and 8. These would be minor updates such as references to the Interpretation Act, correcting cross-references, or updating language. The Act as in force at 1 May 2016 does not incorporate those 2018 amendments, as the reprint cutoff date is 1 May 2016. No further amendments are shown in the list. The Act has therefore remained structurally stable with only two substantive amendment events in over thirty years. The 2005 amendment reduced the scope of the Commissioner’s immunity; the 2016 amendment updated court names. There have been no amendments that alter the core warrant-issuing process, the mutual arrangement provisions, or the forfeiture regime. This stability may reflect the Act’s narrow and specialised operation; it is used infrequently and has not attracted legislative controversy. However, the lack of modernisation means that the Act does not address issues such as electronic documents, digital evidence, encrypted devices, or cross-border data access, which may limit its practical utility in contemporary investigations.

The source text provided does not include any references to case law, judicial consideration, or litigation history. The Act itself contains no internal references to decided cases. A search of case law would likely reveal few decisions, given the Act’s limited scope and the infrequency with which interstate search warrants are challenged. The most likely grounds for litigation would be challenges to the validity of a search warrant: whether the issuing Judge was properly satisfied of reasonable grounds, whether the dual criminality requirement was met, whether a telephone application was justified as impracticable, or whether the warrant was executed within the time limit. Challenges could also arise over the forfeiture of objects: whether the Commissioner made reasonable inquiry before forfeiting, whether notice was properly given, or whether the claim procedure was followed. Given the Act’s age, any significant interpretive decisions would likely relate to the definition of “offence to which this Act applies” and the meaning of “indictable offence against the law of a reciprocating State.” Courts might be asked to determine whether an offence is truly indictable under the law of that State, which may have its own classification. The Act does not specify which version of NT law applies for the dual criminality test (the law at the time of the alleged conduct or at the time of the application). Litigation could also address the scope of the ministerial arrangements: whether they must be in writing, whether they are justiciable, and whether the Commissioner has discretion to refuse to transmit objects if the arrangement is unclear. The protection for the Commissioner in section 9 only covers criminal proceedings; civil claims for wrongful seizure, detinue, or conversion would not be barred by that section and could be brought. The provision that a telephone warrant is not invalidated by technical defects including misdescription of premises, person, or thing (section 5) could be the subject of litigation if a defective warrant is used to justify a search that infringes privacy or property rights. A court might have to decide whether the defect is truly “technical” and whether the error is “evident material mistake”. Section 5 may provide a defence for police but does not preclude a claim for damages if the warrant was so defective as to be no warrant at all. Overall, the Act provides limited occasions for litigation, but the absence of reported decisions in the source material means no specific cases can be cited. Practitioners should be aware that any litigation would likely turn on the factual circumstances of the warrant and the application of general administrative law principles.

Several provisions in the Act contain traps for both police and persons affected. The most significant is the short expiry period for telephone warrants: section 6(6) provides that a search warrant issued as the result of an application by telephone expires after 14 days from the date of issue, as opposed to 28 days for in-person warrants. Police who obtain a telephone warrant must act quickly; if they cannot execute within 14 days, they must reapply, and if they reapply by telephone again they must again show impracticability. The 14-day period is easily overlooked when planning a complex search. Another trap is the requirement that a telephone warrant can only be issued if the Judge notes the facts on the warrant (subsection 4(5)(d)). If the Judge fails to note the facts, the warrant may be technically defective, but section 5 may cure that defect. However, section 5 only protects against technical defects, not fundamental jurisdictional errors, so an absence of noted facts might be arguable as more than technical. The impracticability requirement for telephone applications (subsection 4(4)) is subjective to the applicant, but a court may later assess whether it was genuinely impracticable. Overuse of telephone warrants could undermine the integrity of the process. For the person searched or the occupier, a trap is that the notice required under subsection 6(5) need not be given before the search. The Act requires the notice to be prepared and given “as soon as practicable after execution,” meaning the occupier may not know the legal basis for the search until after it is complete. This limits the ability to object or observe contemporaneously. Another trap for owners of seized property is the short 21-day claim period in section 8(2). The Commissioner must issue a notice within 28 days of receiving the returned object, and the claimant then has only 21 days after service to make a claim. If the owner is absent, the notice may be served on the person from whom the object was seized, not necessarily the owner. If that person fails to respond, the object may be forfeited without the owner’s knowledge. The Commissioner is only required to make “reasonable inquiry” to locate the person who appears to be the owner; if that inquiry does not reach the true owner, forfeiture occurs. The Act does not require the Commissioner to advertise or to search public registers. The protection for the Commissioner under section 9 is narrow: it only applies to criminal proceedings and only for acts or omissions done in good faith in the exercise or purported exercise of power under section 8. It does not protect the Commissioner from civil liability. It does not protect other police officers at all. This means that if the Commissioner acts in bad faith or beyond power, he can be criminally prosecuted; but if he acts in good faith but negligently, he may face civil damages. Another potential trap is the definition of “object” includes money and money’s worth. This could extend to digital currency stored on hardware, or bearer instruments. The seizure of such objects may have immediate financial consequences for the owner, who may be unable to access funds during the transmission and return process. The Act does not provide for any interim arrangement such as posting security or release on undertaking. The extent of force authorised under subsection 6(2) is “such force as is reasonably necessary” for execution. This is a common standard but can lead to disputes about proportionality, especially if property is damaged. The Act does not require police to give reasons why lesser means were inadequate. Finally, a trap for interstate law enforcement agencies: the Act only applies to indictable offences of the reciprocating State. If the foreign offence is a summary offence (however serious), the Act cannot be used. The dual criminality requirement also means that conduct that is legal in the Northern Territory cannot be the subject of a warrant, even if it is a serious offence in the reciprocating State. Police relying on the Act must ensure the conduct would be a Territory offence.

Compliance with the Criminal Investigation (Extra-territorial Offences) Act 1985 primarily falls on the NT Police Force and the Commissioner, but owners and occupiers also need to understand their rights and obligations to protect their interests.

For police officers intending to apply for a warrant: The first step is to verify that the offence under investigation qualifies. Confirm that the State or Territory is a reciprocating State: check that a corresponding law has been declared by the Administrator and that a ministerial arrangement under section 7 is in force. Confirm that the offence is indictable under the law of that jurisdiction and that the conduct, if it had occurred in the NT, would be an offence under NT law. This dual criminality check must be documented. The application must be made by a member of the NT Police Force. The grounds must be verified by affidavit (subsection 4(3)). The affidavit should set out the reasonable grounds for belief regarding both the commission of the offence and the presence of relevant objects in or on the premises or on a person. If applying in person, the officer must attend before a Local Court Judge. If applying by telephone, the officer must first form an opinion that it is impracticable to attend personally, and this opinion should be recorded. The officer must provide name, rank and number. The Judge will inform the officer of the facts relied upon. The officer must undertake to provide a verifying affidavit as soon as practicable. The officer should then forward that affidavit without delay. After the warrant is issued, the officer must execute it within the time limit: 28 days for in-person warrants, 14 days for telephone warrants. During execution, the officer may use reasonable force and may seize any object believed on reasonable grounds to be relevant to the investigation. The officer must prepare a notice containing the officer’s name and rank, the issuing Judge’s name and the date and time of issue, and a description of all objects seized. That notice must be given to the occupier or left in a prominent position on the premises; if a person is searched, a copy must be given to that person. Seized objects must be dealt with according to the ministerial arrangement in place, typically transmitted to the appropriate authority in the reciprocating State. The officer should document all steps and keep a copy of the warrant and affidavit with the police file.

For the Commissioner of Police upon return of objects: The Commissioner must act promptly within 28 days of receiving the object. A written notice must be issued to the person from whom the object was seized or any person appearing to be the owner, requiring them to claim delivery. The Commissioner should make reasonable inquiries to locate such persons if they are not immediately identifiable. If a claim is received within 21 days after service, the Commissioner must either return the object to the claimant (unless it is required for an NT investigation) or refer the claim to the Local Court. The claimant must be advised in writing of the outcome. If no claim is made, or if the person cannot be located after reasonable inquiry within the 28-day period, the object is forfeited and may be sold, destroyed or disposed of. The Commissioner should maintain a register of all seized objects, notices sent, claims received, and disposal actions. The Commissioner should take care to act in good faith to avoid criminal proceedings (section 9 does not protect against civil proceedings).

For persons who are the subject of a search or whose property is seized: Upon execution, request a copy of the notice from the executing officer. This notice should contain the details of the warrant and a list of seized objects. If the officer fails to provide the notice, note the officer’s name and rank and the circumstances. Seek legal advice promptly. If property is returned from interstate, the person from whom it was seized or the owner will receive a notice from the Commissioner. Reply within 21 days of service, claiming delivery. Provide evidence of ownership or entitlement to possession. If the Commissioner retains the object for investigation or refers the claim to the Local Court, the person should attend court or provide submissions. If no notice is received but the person knows their property was sent interstate, they can proactively contact the Commissioner to inquire. If property is forfeited without proper notice or without reasonable inquiry, the person may bring an action for conversion or trespass, or seek judicial review of the Commissioner’s decision, though the Act does not provide a statutory appeal path. Maintain copies of all communications. Owners of sensitive or valuable property should consider insurance and documentation before any potential search.