CRIMINAL INVESTIGATION (EXTRA-TERRITORIAL OFFENCES) REGULATIONS 1987

These Regulations prescribe the procedural forms and immediate formal requirements for search warrants and seizure notices issued under the Criminal Investigation (Extra-territorial Offences) Act 1985. Mechanically, the instrument does four things.

First, it provides the citation for the instrument (regulation 1) and fixes the timing of commencement as 14 days after Gazette notification (regulation 2). Second, it prescribes the form a search warrant must take where the application is made personally (regulation 3(1)) and the alternate form where the application is made by telephone (regulation 3(2)). Third, it prescribes the form of the notice that must be given when objects are seized and removed under a search warrant (regulation 4). Finally, the Schedule contains the three prescribed templates: Form 1 (search warrant on personal application), Form 2 (search warrant on telephone application) and Form 3 (notice of seizure).

The two warrant templates set out the substantive content a Local Court Judge must certify to when authorising entry and search, and the express authorisations a member of the Police Force will receive. Form 1 requires the judge to record receipt of a personally made application verified by affidavit and then to state satisfaction on reasonable grounds that an offence to which the Act applies has been or is intended to be committed and that there are objects relevant to the investigation, with options to authorise entry to premises and/or search of a person. Form 2 records a telephone application, requires the judge to set out the facts relied upon in the form and records an undertaking by the applicant to file an affidavit verifying those facts; Form 2 has a shorter expiry period. Form 3 is the template for notice of seizure and lists what the notice must record (name, rank and number of the officer, description of objects seized, description of premises or person, judge name and date of issue of the warrant).

The Schedule includes a formal note that section 6(3) of the parent Act authorises seizure and removal of objects believed on reasonable grounds to be relevant to the investigation. The Regulations do not themselves create or define offences, nor do they set out coercive investigatory powers beyond the forms and the expiry periods prescribed for the warrants. Procedural mechanics and the content of warrant and seizure notices are the Regulations’ sole express functions: reg 3, reg 4, and the Schedule.

The Regulations are narrowly focused and form-based. Their key legal concepts, taken from the text, are the prescribed forms, the separation of application modes (personal versus telephone), the required contents of each form, the temporal limits on a warrant’s validity, and the formal notice required on seizure.

Prescribed forms. The Schedule contains three mandatory templates: Form 1 for applications made personally; Form 2 for applications by telephone; and Form 3 for notice of seizure. Regulation 3 requires that a search warrant issued after a personal application is to be “in accordance with Form 1” (r 3(1)). Regulation 3 requires that a search warrant issued after a telephone application is to be “in accordance with Form 2” (r 3(2)). Regulation 4 requires that where objects are seized and removed pursuant to the execution of a search warrant, a notice of seizure must be given “in accordance with Form 3”.

Personal versus telephone applications. The two warrant forms differ in procedure and documentary sequencing. Form 1 assumes a personally made application “verified by affidavit” and anticipates the judge’s expression of satisfaction on reasonable grounds as to the offence and the presence of objects relevant to the investigation. Form 2 records that the application was made “by telephone”, that the judge has considered the information furnished orally, and contains an express mechanism requiring the applicant to later make an affidavit verifying the facts on which the judge relied. Form 2 also requires the judge to set out the facts relied upon in the warrant at the time of issue (clause 4 of Form 2).

Content and authorisations in the forms. Both forms require the judge to be satisfied there are reasonable grounds that an offence to which the Act applies has been or is intended to be committed and that there are objects relevant to the investigation. Both provide checkboxes (strike-out provisions) for whether the objects are on premises, on a person, or both, and each allows the judge to authorise a member of the Police Force, “with such assistance as the member thinks necessary”, to enter the premises and search, and/or to search the person referred to. The forms also prescribe the judge’s signature, date, and an explicit expiry period for the warrant.

Temporal limits. The forms set distinct expiry periods for the warrants issued: Form 1 expires at the expiration of 28 days from its date; Form 2 expires at the expiration of 14 days from its date.

Seizure notice content. Form 3 sets out the data that the notice of seizure must contain: the seizing officer’s name, rank and number; a description of the objects seized; whether seized from premises or the person; the name of the issuing Local Court Judge; and the date of issue of the warrant. Regulation 4 makes provision for notice “where in the execution of a search warrant objects have been seized and removed”.

The Regulations specify three principal groups directly affected: Local Court Judges, members of the Police Force, and persons or occupiers of premises from which objects may be seized. They also affect practitioners who prepare applications, and agencies that administer court and policing processes.

Local Court Judges. The judge is the decision-maker the forms are addressed to. Both Form 1 and Form 2 open with the judge recording receipt of an application (personally or by telephone). The judge must be satisfied on reasonable grounds about two matters: that an offence to which the Act applies has been or is intended to be committed, and that there are objects relevant to the investigation (Form 1 cl 2; Form 2 cl 2). The judge must sign and date the warrant and, for telephone applications, must record the facts relied on in the warrant and receive an undertaking from the applicant to file an affidavit verifying those facts (Form 2 cl 3-4). The instrument therefore imposes a formal recording function on Local Court Judges when issuing warrants under the parent Act.

Members of the Police Force. The templates refer repeatedly to “a member of the Police Force” as the applicant and as the person authorised to execute the warrant. The forms require the applicant’s name, rank and number to be recorded. Once the judge issues a warrant in the prescribed form, a member of the Police Force is authorised “with such assistance as the member thinks necessary” to enter premises and/or search persons (Forms 1 and 2). The Schedule note links execution with the parent Act’s seizure power (s 6(3) of the Act). Form 3 requires a seizing officer to record name, rank and number and to sign the seizure notice.

Persons and occupiers. The named subjects of search and seizure are the occupiers of premises and individuals on whom objects may be found. The forms require specification of premises or the person from whom objects may be seized and require a detailed description of objects seized in the seizure notice. Businesses and private individuals whose premises or persons are searched are therefore directly affected; the Regulations dictate the formal content of the warrant authorising that intrusion and the follow-up notice if objects are removed.

Practitioners and administrative staff. Police prosecutors, duty magistrates, court registries and legal representatives will be affected in their procedural roles. The forms require particular information and signatures, and the telephone-application procedure in Form 2 specifically requires a subsequent affidavit from the applicant. Court administrative staff will need to ensure prescribed forms are used and that expiry dates are managed.

The Regulations impose a set of procedural duties on judges and police officers and confer the practical consequence of judicial authorisation to police. They do not, within their text, create substantive rights or carve out statutory exemptions; rather, they define the content and time limits of warrants and the contents of seizure notices pursuant to the parent Act.

Duties on Local Court Judges. The Regulations require judges to ensure warrants conform to the prescribed templates. Where the application is made personally and verified by affidavit, the judge must issue the warrant “in accordance with Form 1” (r 3(1) and Form 1 cl 1). The judge must record satisfaction on reasonable grounds about the commission or intended commission of an offence to which the Act applies and the presence of objects relevant to the investigation (Form 1 cl 2(a)-(b)). For telephone applications, the judge must consider the information furnished by the applicant, be satisfied on reasonable grounds, inform the applicant of the facts relied on, and record those facts in the warrant form; the applicant must undertake to later verify those facts by affidavit (Form 2 cl 2-4). In all cases the judge must sign and date the warrant, and the warrant must specify the expiry period (Form 1: 28 days; Form 2: 14 days).

Duties on members of the Police Force. Once a properly executed warrant is issued, the warrant itself authorises a member of the Police Force to enter premises and search (Form 1 and Form 2 cl 2(c)), and to search a person if so authorised (Form 1 and Form 2 cl 2(d)). The Schedule note recalling section 6(3) of the Act identifies the duty to seize and remove any object that the executing officer believes on reasonable grounds to be relevant to the investigation; while that seizure power originates in the Act, the Regulations require that when objects are seized and removed, notice must be given in accordance with Form 3 (reg 4 and Form 3). Form 3 requires the seizing officer to record personal identifiers (name, rank and number), a description of the objects seized, the location or person the objects were taken from, the issuing judge, and the date of issue of the warrant, and to sign the notice.

Affidavit verification and undertakings. The Regulations create a clear procedural duty relating to verification of facts: a personal application must be verified by affidavit (Form 1 cl 1), and a telephone application requires the applicant to undertake to execute an affidavit verifying the facts on which the judge relied (Form 2 cl 3-4). The judge must, in the case of telephone applications, inform the applicant of the facts on which the judge relies and require the undertaking. These are explicit documentary requirements.

The Regulations themselves do not create penalty provisions or specify enforcement mechanisms beyond the operational authorisations contained in the prescribed forms. The text contains no express criminal sanctions, civil penalty provisions, or administrative fines for non-compliance with the form requirements. Enforcement, as described in the Regulations, is operational: a Local Court Judge issues a warrant in the prescribed form and a member of the Police Force executes it and, where objects are seized and removed, provides a notice in the prescribed form.

Operational enforcement. Enforcement of the regulatory requirements occurs via the mandated use of prescribed forms. Regulation 3 requires that warrants be issued “in accordance with” the appropriate form; regulation 4 requires that notices of seizure be given “in accordance with” Form 3. Practically, this creates an administrative requirement for courts and police to use the prescribed templates. The primary sanction for non-adherence, insofar as the Regulations are concerned, is the absence of the prescribed form; the Regulations do not specify legal consequences in terms of invalidity or admissibility of evidence. The parent Act is referenced for seizure powers (Schedule note referring to s 6(3)), and questions about the legality of searches, the validity of a warrant, admissibility of seized material, or remedies for affected persons would fall to the parent Act and general legal principles rather than to these Regulations.

Who enforces execution. The documents produced under the Regulations are executed and signed by the authorised actors: Local Court Judges sign the warrants and members of the Police Force sign the notice of seizure (Form 3). The execution and record-keeping responsibilities are therefore the practical enforcement channels. Courts and police administrative systems will be the immediate implementers charged with ensuring the prescribed forms are used and properly completed.

Absence of administrative penalty machinery. There is no clause in the Regulations prescribing a compliance regime or review process in the event templates are not used or are incorrectly completed. The Regulations similarly do not delegate disciplinary functions. Any enforcement for improper exercise of powers under a warrant or improper seizure would be channelled through other legal rules and institutional mechanisms (for example judicial review, admissibility challenges, internal police discipline, or remedies under the parent Act), none of which are articulated in the text of these Regulations.

Reference to parent Act for coercive power. The Schedule includes a note that section 6(3) of the Act authorises seizure of objects believed on reasonable grounds to be relevant to the investigation. That note indicates the source of the coercive power. Any prosecutorial or evidentiary consequences of seizure will depend on the parent Act and general legal doctrine, not on the Regulations’ text.

The Regulations are expressly made under the Criminal Investigation (Extra-territorial Offences) Act 1985 and operate as subordinate instruments to that Act. Their operation and legal effect must be read alongside the parent Act, and the Schedule explicitly cross-refers to section 6(3) of the Act for seizure powers. The Regulations are limited to form and procedure; they do not expand the statutory powers in the Act nor create independent powers.

Parent Act dependency. The Schedule contains a note that “Section 6(3) of the Act authorises a member of the Police Force executing this warrant to seize and remove any object that he believes, on reasonable grounds, to be relevant to the investigation of the offence referred to in clause 2(a) of this warrant.” This is an explicit statement that seizure authority is derived from the parent Act, not the Regulations. The warrant forms reference section 4 of the Act as the statutory head of power under which the application for a search warrant is made (Forms are headed “SEARCH WARRANT … under section 4 of the Criminal Investigation (Extra-territorial Offences) Act 1985”), indicating that the judge’s power to issue the warrant derives from that section of the Act.

Local Court and judicial architecture. The forms require a “Local Court Judge” to issue the warrant. The endnotes record the Local Court (Related Amendments) Act 2016 (Act No. 8, 2016) with an assent date 6 April 2016 and a commencement date 1 May 2016, and list it as an amending instrument (Endnotes 2 and 4). Those entries indicate that the Regulations have been updated in light of wider reforms to the Local Court, though the text of the Regulations itself does not set out the substantive effect of those amending Acts beyond the endnotes’ record.

Interaction with interpretation legislation. Endnotes record that the Interpretation Legislation Amendment Act 2018 made formal amendments of a “formal nature” to r 1 and the Schedule. This indicates interaction with the general rules of legislative drafting and statutory interpretation that govern how forms and short titles are produced. The Regulations must therefore be interpreted in light of any interpretative amendments of that nature.

No conflict or derogation clauses. The Regulations contain no express savings, derogations, or conflict resolution clauses with other statutory instruments or common law. They are purely prescriptive about the form and content of particular documents. Any inconsistency between the forms and the parent Act would be resolved by the rule that subordinate instruments cannot override primary legislation. The Schedule’s explicit cross-reference to the Act implies an intention for the forms to be read as procedural adjuncts to the Act.

The Regulations’ endnotes set out the formal amendment and commencement history in compact form. Use of the Schedule and the forms has been subject to statutory updates recorded in the endnotes.

Original instrument. The Criminal Investigation (Extra-Territorial Offences) Regulations were originally made as Statutory Letter (SL) No. 22 of 1987. The endnotes record notification on 20 May 1987 and commencement on 4 June 1987 (r 2).

1991 amendment. The Regulations were amended by SL No. 33 of 1991. The endnotes record that the amendment was notified on 10 July 1991 and commenced the same day. The Schedule indicates that item(s) in the Schedule were amended by No. 33, 1991 (Endnote 4: “sch amd No. 33, 1991”).

2016 Local Court-related amendment. The Local Court (Related Amendments) Act 2016 (Act No. 8, 2016) is recorded in the endnotes with assent dated 6 April 2016 and a commencement date of 1 May 2016. The endnotes indicate that this Act effected an amendment to the Regulations (Endnote 4: “Act No. 8, 2016, s 45”). The endnotes also note commencement references related to Local Court (Repeals and Related Amendments) Act 2016 (Act No. 9, 2016) and a Gazette entry S34, 29 April 2016. The text of the Regulations in the Schedule addresses the role of a “Local Court Judge”; the 2016 amending Act is recorded as having affected the Regulations in a manner captured in the formal amendment list.

2018 interpretative amendments. The Interpretation Legislation Amendment Act 2018 (Act No. 22 of 2018) is recorded in the endnotes as having made formal amendments of a “formal nature” to r 1 and the Schedule, described as general amendments that are not referred to in the table of amendments to the reprint. Endnote 3 describes those as general formal amendments to r 1 and sch.

Endnote summary. Endnote 2 gives a short list of legislation related to the Regulations: the SL No. 22, 1987 instrument; the amendment SL No. 33, 1991; the Local Court (Related Amendments) Act 2016 (Act No. 8, 2016) with associated commencement; and notes on the Local Court (Repeals and Related Amendments) Act 2016 (Act No. 9, 2016). Endnote 4 itemises which parts of the Schedule were amended and by which instruments: “sch amd No. 33, 1991; Act No. 8, 2016, s 45”. The endnotes thus capture the record of the instrument’s formal updates.

No intervening textual amendments recorded in the Schedule itself. The main body of these Regulations as provided contains the three Forms and the two short regulations. The endnotes indicate that some amendments have occurred, but the consolidated text presented here is the form “as in force at 1 May 2016”. The reader should note that the endnotes reference both substantive amending instruments and interpretative, formal amendments and should consult current consolidated official reprints for any further updates after the date shown.

The Regulations as presented do not contain any recorded litigation history, case citations, or references to judicial authorities within their text or endnotes. No cases are named, and there are no annotations in the instrument itself describing judicial interpretation, appellate rulings, or statutory challenges.

Absence of litigation references in the instrument. The Schedule and the two short regulations are purely prescriptive forms and contain no statutory notes indicating how courts have interpreted specific clauses. The endnotes list amending legislation and formal amendments but do not record case law or litigation outcomes. Therefore, the legislative text provides no specific litigious precedents or interpretative authorities.

Practical consequence for practitioners. Because the instrument contains no litigation history, practitioners must not rely on the Regulations alone for case law guidance. The Regulations must be read alongside the parent Act (Criminal Investigation (Extra-territorial Offences) Act 1985) and any relevant case law under that Act or related search and seizure jurisprudence. The absence of litigation in this text does not mean no cases exist; it means no cases are recorded in the instrument or endnotes supplied here.

What to check if litigation is relevant. For matters of admissibility, validity of warrants, proportionality of searches, or legality of seizures, practitioners will need to consult:

• the parent Act (particularly the provisions under which warrants are issued and seizure powers are conferred, including section 4 and section 6(3) as referenced in the forms); and
• reported and unreported decisions in which courts have considered the exercise of search or seizure powers under the parent Act or analogous statutory regimes.

This Regulations reprint does not itself supply that jurisprudential material. Any litigation history or judicial decisions concerning these specific Forms, the meaning of “reasonable grounds” in section 6(3) of the Act as applied, or procedural challenges to Form 2 telephone applications would have to be located in case reports, court records or legal databases outside this instrument.

The Regulations are short and form-driven, but a number of practical pitfalls arise from the forms’ structure, the cross-reference to the parent Act, and gaps the forms do not address.

Different expiry periods. The two warrant types have different validity periods: Form 1 (personal application verified by affidavit) expires after 28 days from its date; Form 2 (telephone application) expires after 14 days (Schedule, Forms 1 and 2). Practitioners and police must track these differing expiry dates. Failure to note the shorter duration of telephone warrants may lead to exercises of powers after the warrant has expired.

Affidavit sequencing risk. Form 1 requires a personal application “verified by affidavit” (Form 1 cl 1). Form 2 permits a telephone application to proceed but requires an undertaking by the applicant to make an affidavit verifying the facts later (Form 2 cl 3-4). The practical risk is that the oral facts relied upon by the judge must later be matched to a verifying affidavit; if an affidavit is not filed, questions could arise about the factual basis for the warrant. The Regulations do not set a timeframe for filing the verifying affidavit after a telephone application; the undertaking is required but the mechanism for enforcement is not specified.

Mandatory fields and strike-outs. The forms include fields to be completed and parts to be struck out where inapplicable. Incomplete completion, failure to strike non-applicable options, or inaccurate entries (for example leaving both premises and person fields active when only one is applicable) may create procedural defects. The Regulations do not specify whether such defects invalidate a warrant or seizure notice; nevertheless, inaccuracies may be relied upon in litigation or evidentiary challenges.

Seizure authority resides in the parent Act. The Schedule’s Note recalls section 6(3) of the Act as the source of seizure authority. The Regulations therefore do not themselves authorise seizure; they only prescribe the notice form to be used after seizure. Practitioners must ensure the seizure is lawful under the parent Act and that “reasonable grounds” exist as required by s 6(3). The Forms do not paraphrase the statutory test; they require merely the judge’s satisfaction and officers’ reasonable-belief standards as described in the Note.

No specified method for giving notice. Regulation 4 requires a notice of seizure “shall be given in accordance with Form 3”, and Form 3 lists the required content. The Regulations do not specify to whom the notice must be given, or the method of delivery, such as leaving a copy with the occupier, sending notice by post, or filing with the court. The lack of a prescribed delivery method is a procedural gap. Practitioners must therefore attend to local court practice and policing procedures to ensure notice is actually provided to the affected person or occupier in a manner that can be evidenced.

Compliance with these Regulations is a matter of procedure: use the correct form, include the required particulars, observe the affidavit and undertaking requirements, respect expiry periods, and issue the Form 3 notice when objects are seized and removed. The following is a practical checklist derived from the Regulations and the Schedule.

1. Choose the correct form

• If the application is made personally and is verified by affidavit, use Form 1 (reg 3(1); Schedule, Form 1).
• If the application is made by telephone, use Form 2 and ensure the applicant undertakes to verify facts by affidavit (reg 3(2); Schedule, Form 2).

2. Satisfy and record the judge’s prerequisites

• Ensure the judge records satisfaction on reasonable grounds that an offence to which the Act applies has been or is intended to be committed and that objects relevant to the investigation exist (Forms 1 and 2, cl 2(a)-(b)).
• For telephone applications, ensure the judge records the facts relied upon in the warrant and obtains the applicant’s undertaking to make an affidavit verifying those facts (Form 2 cl 3-4).

3. Complete the forms accurately

• Fill the applicant’s name, rank and number as required (Forms 1 and 2 cl 1).
• Specify whether the objects are in or on premises, on the person, or both, and strike out any inapplicable options (Forms 1 and 2 cl 2(b); strike-out notation in Schedule).
• Include the judge’s signature and the date (Forms 1 and 2 signature block).

4. Observe the temporal limits

• For Form 1 warrants, note that the warrant “shall expire at the expiration of 28 days from its date” (Form 1).
• For Form 2 warrants, note that the warrant “shall expire at the expiration of 14 days from its date” (Form 2).
• Track the expiry date to ensure any execution occurs while the warrant is in force.

5. Execute and seize in line with the parent Act

• When executing the warrant, officers rely on the statutory authority in the parent Act, including section 6(3) authorising seizure of objects believed on reasonable grounds to be relevant (Schedule Note). Ensure the factual basis for any seizure complies with the Act’s tests.