Criminal Investigation (Extra-territorial Offences) Regulations 1989

The Regulations rest on two simple legal concepts: prescription of form and completion directions. Regulation 2(1) establishes that the Schedule’s forms are the forms to be used for their respective purposes. Regulation 2(2) makes completion according to the directions in each form compulsory. These are the governing legal commands; the Schedule then operationalises them.

Form 1 , Application for a Search Warrant: This is a sworn statement to be made by a member of the Western Australia Police Force, sworn before a Justice of the Peace. The form requires the applicant to affirm that there are reasonable grounds (a) to believe an offence covered by the Act has been, or is intended to be, committed; and (b) that an object relevant to the investigation is at named premises. The form contains fields for the applicant’s full name, address and rank; a description and address of premises; and a boxed place to insert the grounds relied upon. The application concludes with a request for issuance of a search warrant under s 4(1) of the Act and spaces for signature and JP attestation.

Form 2 , Search Warrant: This form is the instrument a Justice of the Peace executes when satisfied on the sworn application that reasonable grounds exist (it is headed with a reference to s 4). It is addressed to a named police officer and "all other members of the Police Force". The operative authorisation is framed in the first person on the face of the warrant: the JP states satisfaction and then authorises, "in the name of the State", the police to enter and search the described premises and anything in them, with such assistants as the officer thinks necessary. The form also includes an optional "Directions for execution at night" slot and places for the date, time (a.m./p.m.), and JP signature.

Form 3 , Notice to Occupier of Premises: This form is linked to s 5(6) and reg 2. It is a post‑search notice to be given to the occupier of premises where a warrant has been executed. It requires the police officer’s name and rank, the time and date of execution, the Justice of the Peace who issued the warrant, and a list of objects seized and removed. It directs the officer to notify the occupier of those facts and to sign and date the notice.

Two procedural features are important. First, the forms make judicial satisfaction a gatekeeping step: a JP must be satisfied on the sworn application before issuing the warrant under s 4(1) of the Act (Form 2). Second, the forms tie the exercise of physical powers (entry, search, seizure) to documentary steps that create a record for later scrutiny (the oathed grounds in Form 1 and the seized‑items list in Form 3). The Regulations therefore embed document‑driven control and retrospective accountability into the Act’s investigative apparatus.

The Compilation table in the Notes introduces the legislative lifecycle: the Regulations were gazetted 19 May 1989 and commenced the same day; subsequent amendments appeared in 2005 and 2007 (noting reprint status at 6 Feb 2004). Those amending instruments altered form content and the Schedule heading; the Schedule itself bears bracketed amendments. The Regulations operate in close textual connection with ss 4 and 5(6) of the Act, as indicated by the square bracket references in the form headings.

Three distinct actor groups are directly affected by these Regulations: members of the Police Force, Justices of the Peace (or other officers authorised to issue warrants under the Act), and occupiers of premises subject to search and seizure under the Act. A fourth category comprises administrative and records staff who must store, reproduce, or produce the completed forms for court or oversight bodies.

Police officers: The Regulations obligate police officers to use the Schedule’s forms when applying for search warrants, executing warrants, and notifying occupiers of seized property (Reg 2(1); Forms 1-3). The applicant must be a member of the Police Force and must swear the grounds before a Justice of the Peace (Form 1). Police executing warrants must ensure the warrant instrument (Form 2) is properly completed and carried out with any assistants required. After execution, the officer must complete and deliver the Notice to Occupier (Form 3), listing objects seized and the issuing JP’s identity.

Justices of the Peace: The JP’s function is to hear and be satisfied by a sworn application (Form 1) and to authorise the warrant by completing and signing Form 2. The Regulations require the JP to record satisfaction on the face of the warrant template supplied. Form 2 also contemplates that a JP can include directions for night execution where necessary. The JP’s signature and the date/time fields are mandatory parts of the process.

Occupiers of premises: Occupiers are affected in two ways. First, they are the subjects of police entry and search authorised by the warrant. Second, they receive the post‑search Notice to Occupier (Form 3) specifying the time the warrant was executed, the issuing JP, and the items seized and removed. The Notice creates a contemporaneous record of what was taken and by whom; it is the primary document by which an occupier is informed of police action under the Act.

Other affected actors: Courts, prosecutors and defence practitioners will engage with the completed forms as evidentiary and procedural materials. Administrative staff in police stations will be tasked with storing the original forms, recording details, and ensuring forms match the Act’s requirements. The Compilation table indicates that those tasked with compliance must be alert to amendments (2005, 2007) and to the correct current version of the forms.

Costs and operational burdens are concentrated on the police and JPs. Police must prepare sworn grounds, attend a JP for attestation, and complete post‑search notices. JPs must read, assess and sign the warrant template. Occupiers bear the immediate cost of intrusion and potential loss or deprivation of seized items; the Regulations fix the formal notification channel that informs occupiers which items were removed. The Regulations do not prescribe compensation, review routes, or timeframes for return or retention of seized property; such matters would be governed by the Act or other laws, not the Regulations themselves.

Duties imposed by the Regulations are limited, precise and documentary. The primary statutory duties are:

• Use the prescribed forms: Regulation 2(1) requires that the Schedule’s forms be used "for the purposes for which they are respectively applicable". That imposes a duty on police and JPs to employ Forms 1-3 in the contexts indicated by their headings (Form 1 and Form 2 linked to s 4; Form 3 linked to s 5(6) and reg 2).

• Complete forms according to directions: Regulation 2(2) requires that each prescribed form "shall be completed in accordance with the directions specified in it". The forms contain explicit prompts and directions: the applicant’s full name, address and rank; description and address of premises; the grounds relied upon; and the JP’s attestation and signature. Police must fill these fields and swear the application before a JP.

• Sworn oath requirement: Form 1 must be sworn before a Justice of the Peace. The document’s language specifically records that the applicant "say on oath" that there are reasonable grounds and that the grounds are to be inserted in the space provided. The sworn element creates a legal duty on the applicant to present truthful grounds under oath.

• Judicial satisfaction before issuance: Form 2 is designed to be completed by a Justice of the Peace who is "satisfied, upon the application" that reasonable grounds exist. The JP’s act of being satisfied and the signature on Form 2 effect the authorisation to enter and search under s 4(1) of the Act.

• Notification to occupier: Form 3 memorialises the duty owed to the occupier once a warrant has been executed. It requires the police officer to notify the occupier that a warrant was executed, the identity of the issuing JP, and the list of objects seized and removed.

Rights implicated by the Regulations are largely procedural rather than substantive:

• Right to be informed: Occupiers gain a right to be informed about the execution of the warrant and the items removed via Form 3. The Notice sets out the particulars that must be communicated. The Regulation directly links Form 3 to s 5(6) of the Act, which implies a statutory notice obligation is to be discharged by the use of the prescribed form.

• Right to judicial oversight: The requirement that a Justice of the Peace be satisfied before issuing the warrant places a judicial gatekeeping right in the process. While the Regulations do not specify standards beyond "satisfied" or "reasonable grounds", they require that judicial imprimatur be evidenced on Form 2.

• Evidentiary status of forms: The sworn application and signed warrant become documentary records that will be relied upon in any subsequent judicial or administrative review. The forms’ contents will be material to assessing legality, though the Regulations do not themselves define how they are to be treated in evidence.

Duties not present and absences to note:

• The Regulations do not prescribe how long seized items are to be retained, how an occupier may seek return, or what remedies are available for improper search and seizure. Those substantive aspects are left to the Act and other laws.

• There is no explicit provision in the Regulations for alternative forms where, for example, a JP is not available; nor is there an emergency telephone or electronic procedure specified. The forms assume in‑person or standard attendance for oath and signature.

Operationally, the effect is that correct completion of the forms is itself a compliance obligation. Failure to use the prescribed form or to follow its completion directions is a breach of the Regulations; the Regulations do not spell out statutory sanctions for such breaches, but the forms are the mechanism by which the procedural preconditions to the Act’s exercise are documented. Consequently, the police bear the burden of accurate completion and timely delivery of the Notice to Occupier.

The Regulations themselves are terse and do not create separate penalty provisions or enforcement mechanisms; they prescribe forms and completion directions only. The text supplied contains no express monetary fines, imprisonment terms, or administrative penalties in the Regulations. It therefore follows from the Regulations’ text that enforcement of compliance with the form‑prescription will be through the general supervisory and enforcement machinery applicable to subordinate legislation and the Act rather than through sanctions contained in the Regulations themselves.

Because the Regulations link the forms to specific provisions of the Act (Forms 1 and 2 to s 4; Form 3 to s 5(6)), enforcement of the underlying search and seizure powers, and remedies for improper exercises of those powers, will derive from the Act and from the broader legal framework (criminal procedure, evidence law and administrative law). The Regulations do not elaborate those enforcement pathways. Practitioners should therefore treat the Regulations as procedural requirements whose breach could give rise to collateral consequences under the Act or in court. The Regulations do not specify whether failure to use the prescribed form automatically invalidates a warrant or invalidates subsequent seizures; nor do they set out the process for rectification of errors in completed forms.

Consequently, the following enforcement modes are apparent from the structure of the instrument:

• Internal police accountability: Police services will likely enforce compliance administratively through internal policies and records management; the Regulations make the forms the official templates to be stored and reproduced. The Regulations themselves do not establish a penalties regime for internal non‑compliance.

• Judicial scrutiny: Because Form 1 is sworn and Form 2 records the JP’s satisfaction, the courts will use the forms as records of the application and authorisation process. The Regulations do not specify remedies, but courts have general powers to exclude evidence obtained unlawfully or improperly; the forms will be central to any such challenge. The Regulations only set the format and contents of the documents that will be relied upon in that process.

• Statutory enforcement via the Act: Any express offences or enforcement mechanisms relating to search, seizure, or misuse of the Act’s powers would be located in the Act itself or in other statutes. The Regulations are silent on these points; they merely prescribe the documents to be used in exercising and recording the powers.

• Administrative challenge or review: The supplied text does not specify a complaint or review procedure for non‑compliance with the Regulations. Any administrative review would therefore proceed under general administrative law, internal oversight mechanisms, or the provisions of the Act.

In short, the Regulations mandate precise administrative behaviour but do not set out a standalone penalties regime. For enforcement and remedies, practitioners must look to the Act, to general law on admissibility and procedural fairness, and to police internal governance. The absence of express sanctions in the Regulations increases the importance of the underlying Act and judicial processes for addressing non‑compliance.

The Regulations are explicitly dependent on and subordinate to the Criminal Investigation (Extra‑territorial Offences) Act 1987. Each form in the Schedule is headed with a reference to the Act and to the specific provisions under which the form operates: Forms 1 and 2 include the notation "[s. 4]" and Form 3 includes "[s. 5(6); reg. 2]". That linkage indicates the Regulations do not create standalone powers but operationalise statutory powers in the Act by prescribing the form of documents used in their exercise.

The Compilation table in the Notes confirms that the Regulations were subject to subsequent statutory instruments: the Courts and Legal Practice (Consequential Amendments) Regulations 2005 (r. 4) and the Criminal Investigation (Extra‑territorial Offences) Amendment Regulations 2007. These amendments affected the forms and the Schedule heading (see bracketed notes within the Schedule). Practitioners should treat those instruments as legislative amendments to the Regulations and ensure they are using the most recent consolidated form versions. The Compilation table records gazettal dates and commencement dates for the principal Regulations and subsequent amending rules.

Beyond the Act itself, the Regulations are procedural subordinate legislation and therefore must be read in the context of other applicable procedural and evidentiary laws. Relevant interactions will include:

• Criminal procedure and evidence law: The content and execution of Form 1 (sworn grounds) and Form 2 (warrant) will be admitted or challenged in criminal proceedings under evidence law. The Regulations do not address admissibility, chain of custody, or retention of seized items; these matters are governed by separate statutes and common law.

• Administrative law: The JP’s satisfaction, and any administrative decisions based on the forms, fall within the supervisory scope of administrative law. The Regulations do not establish a specific review path; any judicial review of a JP’s decision or police conduct would proceed under general judicial review principles or under the Act, where applicable.

• Police operational law and internal policies: The Police Force’s internal rules on warrant applications, the conduct of searches, and management of seized property will interact with the Regulations. The Regulations mandate the specific forms to be used, but internal policies will determine handling, archiving, and transmission of those forms.

• Courts and legal practice legislation: The 2005 amending instrument is titled "Courts and Legal Practice (Consequential Amendments) Regulations 2005", indicating that changes in courts and legal practice law prompted consequential adjustments to these Regulations. The 2005 amendment likely reflects harmonisation with broader procedural frameworks, though the Regulations’ text does not elaborate the substance of those consequential amendments beyond altering form content.

• Local authority or property law: The execution of a warrant on private premises will interact with property rights and occupier protections under other laws. The Regulations prescribe the notice mechanism (Form 3) but do not displace property law remedies or compensation regimes that may apply under separate statutes.

The Regulations do not purport to override, limit or extend other legal obligations beyond prescribing the forms to be used in pursuing the Act’s powers. Practitioners must therefore treat the forms as part of a multi‑layered legal environment: the forms show compliance with the Regulations; compliance with the Act and with other relevant laws is required for substantively lawful investigative action.

The Notes compilation table supplies the amendment chronology for the Regulations. The base instrument, the Criminal Investigation (Extra‑territorial Offences) Regulations 1989, was gazetted on 19 May 1989 and commenced the same day. The Regulations were reprinted as at 6 February 2004 (Reprint 1). Thereafter two amending instruments are recorded:

• Courts and Legal Practice (Consequential Amendments) Regulations 2005, r. 4. Gazetted 19 April 2005, commenced 19 April 2005. This amending rule appears in the compilation table and is listed as affecting the Regulations. The reprint note indicates the 2005 instrument altered or updated the Regulations.

• Criminal Investigation (Extra‑territorial Offences) Amendment Regulations 2007. Gazetted 31 July 2007. The commencement entries specify that r. 1 and r. 2 commenced same day (31 July 2007) and that the remaining Regulations commenced 1 August 2007 (see r. 2(a) and r. 2(b)). The Schedule itself contains bracketed notes indicating amendments to the Schedule heading and particular forms (for example, "[Heading inserted: Gazette 31 Jul 2007 p. 3797.]" and "[Form 1 amended: Gazette 31 Jul 2007 p. 3797.]" and "[Form 2 amended: Gazette 19 Apr 2005 p. 1295; 31 Jul 2007 p. 3797.]").

The Schedule as presented therefore reflects post‑1989 edits to form layout or content effected by the 2005 and 2007 instruments. The Regulations’ Notes also record the reprint status as at 6 February 2004, which suggests a consolidation of the Regulations up to that date before later amendments.

The amending instruments’ titles indicate distinct motivations: the 2005 changes were consequential to Courts and Legal Practice reforms, while the 2007 amendments appear to have been specific adjustments to the Criminal Investigation (Extra‑territorial Offences) Regulations. The compiled text, however, does not provide the exact textual changes effected by those amendments beyond the bracketed insertion notes and the dates. Practitioners should consult the Gazette references (19 Apr 2005 p. 1294-302; 31 Jul 2007 p. 3796‑7) for the precise amendment language if precise historical drafting or form layout differences are material to a matter.

No further amendments are recorded in the supplied compilation table. The compilation does not reflect later changes, if any, beyond 2007; users must check current consolidations and databases for post‑2007 modifications not captured in this text.

The Regulations, in the text supplied, do not contain or reference any litigation history. The schedule and notes make no mention of judicial decisions, appeals, or cases that interpret the Regulations or the forms they prescribe. There are no cases named in the instrument, and the Compilation table does not list any judicial developments.

Because these Regulations principally prescribe forms and completion directions, litigation concerning them would typically be collateral to disputes under the Act , for example, challenges to the validity of a warrant where it is alleged the form was not properly completed, or applications to exclude evidence where procedural formalities were not observed. The supplied Regulation text does not include or cite any such cases.

Practitioners seeking authoritative judicial interpretation of the forms, of the statutory meaning of "satisfied" or "reasonable grounds", or of the consequences of failing to use or properly complete the prescribed forms must therefore look to decisions arising under the Criminal Investigation (Extra‑territorial Offences) Act 1987 or to general case law on warrants and search powers. That case law is not included in the Regulations compilation provided. Accordingly, for legal argument or precedent reliance, one must consult separate judgments and annotated legislation sources outside the text supplied here.

In the absence of recorded litigation in the supplied compilation, the practical inference is that the Regulations function as administrative design specifications for exercises of statutory power, and that any disputes about their operation or validity will present as fact‑specific contests in courts or tribunals applying the Act and general legal principles.

Several operational pitfalls and subtleties arise from the Regulations’ narrowly procedural prescription. These are procedural risks that practitioners and operational staff should anticipate and manage:

• Mandatory use of prescribed forms: Regulation 2(1) requires use of the Schedule’s forms "for the purposes for which they are respectively applicable". Failure to use the prescribed form, or use of an altered or incomplete version, is non‑compliance with the Regulations. The Regulations do not provide an alternative or a cure‑up provision; practitioners must ensure station templates reflect the current Schedule.

• Completion according to directions: Regulation 2(2) mandates that "each form prescribed shall be completed in accordance with the directions specified in it". The forms contain fields for particulars such as full name, rank, address, description of premises and the grounds for the application. Omitting information, leaving the grounds box blank, or failing to record the JP’s name or signature may render the documentary record defective.

• Sworn statement required: Form 1 requires the applicant to "say on oath" before a Justice of the Peace that reasonable grounds exist. Errors in the attestation process , swearing before an unauthorised official, not administering a proper oath (for example, using affirmation without following the prescribed affirmation procedure where an oath is required), or failing to have the oath properly recorded , can impair the legal weight of the application.

• "Reasonable grounds" language: Form 1 requires the applicant to assert "reasonable grounds" that an offence to which the Act applies has been or is intended to be committed and that an object relevant to the investigation is at the premises. The forms do not specify the content required to satisfy reasonable grounds, leaving that assessment to the JP. Applicants should therefore ensure the grounds box contains factual, objective material sufficient to enable judicial assessment.

• Judicial satisfaction requirement: Form 2 presupposes the JP is "satisfied" upon the application. The Regulations do not set standards or a record beyond the signed form. Practitioners should ensure that the JP has access to the sworn grounds and any supporting information necessary to reach satisfaction, and that the JP records any directions (including night execution directions) in the space provided.

• Notice particulars: Form 3 requires the officer to identify the issuing Justice of the Peace and to list seized objects. Failure to list seized items accurately may cause practical difficulties for occupiers seeking return or for courts reviewing the seizure. The Notice does not, in the Regulations, prescribe subsequent steps for contested seizures.

• Night execution: Form 2 has a specific "Directions for execution at night (if any)" slot. Failure to include or comply with night execution directions where the warrant is executed at night may be problematic. The form contemplates that night execution directions are an optional but discrete element that must be recorded.

• Amendments and version control: The Schedule shows amendments in 2005 and 2007, including insertion of headings and edit marks. Agencies must ensure they use the most recent consolidated version; reliance on outdated templates is a compliance risk.

• Signatures and time stamps: Each form requires signature(s) and date/time entries. In practice, inconsistent or missing time stamps, unsigned notices, or mismatched dates between the warrant and the notice may raise credibility or admissibility questions in subsequent proceedings.

• Scope and limits absent from the Regulations: The Regulations do not cover processes such as chain of custody, retention periods for seized items, or the means by which an occupier may contest seizure or seek return. Operational staff should not assume the forms alone satisfy all legal obligations pertaining to seized property.

• Cross‑reference ambiguity: The forms make bracketed references to sections of the Act (s. 4 and s. 5(6)). Practitioners must ensure they consult the Act itself for substantive powers and limits rather than relying on the forms’ texts in isolation.

In summary, the main "gotchas" are procedural: failing to use the prescribed forms, incomplete or inaccurate completion, imperfect administration of the oath, inadequate factual grounds for the JP’s assessment, and lack of version control following amendments. These procedural lapses are the points at which challenges to the legality of searches or seizures are most likely to be mounted.

To comply with these Regulations and the Schedule, follow this stepwise, document‑focused process when acting under the Criminal Investigation (Extra‑territorial Offences) Act 1987:

1. Confirm statutory basis: Before preparing any documentation, verify that the matter falls within the scope of the Act. The forms are applicable only to offences to which the Act applies (Form 1 language). The Regulations do not extend or create investigatory powers themselves.

2. Use the current prescribed forms: Obtain the up‑to‑date consolidated versions of Forms 1-3 as in Schedule 1 of the Regulations. The Compilation table notes amendments in 2005 and 2007; ensure station templates reflect those amendments or later consolidations. The Regulations require use of the forms "for the purposes for which they are respectively applicable" (Reg 2(1)).

3. Prepare the sworn application (Form 1):

   • Populate the applicant fields: insert the full name, address and rank of the police officer making the application (Form 1 fields (1)-(3)).
   • Identify the premises: insert a clear description and address of premises (Form 1 fields (4)-(5)).
   • Draft the grounds: set out the factual material that constitutes the "reasonable grounds" to believe an offence has been, or is intended to be, committed, and that an object relevant to the investigation is at the premises. Use the space provided for "(6) Insert grounds relied upon." The form requires that these grounds be sworn.
   • Attend a Justice of the Peace: the applicant must swear the form before a JP; the form records the oath language and requires the JP’s attestation beneath the applicant’s signature.

4. Secure judicial authorisation (Form 2):

   • Present the sworn Form 1 to a Justice of the Peace for consideration.
   • Ensure the JP is provided with all material necessary to reach satisfaction that reasonable grounds exist. Form 2 records that the JP must be "satisfied, upon the application" that reasonable grounds exist (Form 2 text).
   • If the JP is satisfied, the JP completes Form 2, inserting the name of the police officer to whom the warrant is addressed and the description and address of the premises. If night execution is contemplated, the JP should record any directions in the "Directions for execution at night (if any)" slot.
   • The JP signs and dates the warrant in the spaces provided. The signed Form 2 constitutes the authorisation to enter and search under s 4(1) of the Act.

5. Execute the warrant consistent with Form 2:

   • Police must carry the signed warrant and comply with any directions recorded on Form 2, including night execution directions if present.
   • Ensure that persons present are informed as required by law and that searches and seizures are conducted in accordance with the Act and applicable procedural safeguards. The Regulations do not elaborate operational conduct beyond the warrant form.

6. Complete and deliver the Notice to Occupier (Form 3):

   • After executing the warrant and seizing items, complete Form 3 by inserting the premises address, the name and rank of the officer who executed the warrant, the time and date of execution, the issuing JP’s name, and an itemised list of seized objects.
   • Deliver the Notice promptly to the occupier of the premises. The Regulations link Form 3 to s 5(6) and reg 2, making it the mechanism for notifying occupiers of seizures.

7. Recordkeeping and custody:

   • Retain originals and copies of Forms 1-3 in accordance with police recordkeeping policies and any statutory retention obligations. Although the Regulations do not prescribe retention periods, the forms are primary documentary evidence of the warrant process and should be preserved.
   • Maintain contemporaneous records of the chain of custody for seized items even though the Regulations do not prescribe chain‑of‑custody specifics. Proper custody and recordkeeping will support later admissibility and administrative review.

8. Version control and training:

   • Ensure that all officers authorised to apply for, execute, or process warrants are trained in the Regulations and in use of the current forms.
   • Implement version control systems so that outdated templates are not used. The Compilation table shows amending instruments in 2005 and 2007; agencies should monitor Gazette publications for later amendments.

9. Legal oversight:

   • Where the grounds are sensitive or borderline, seek legal advice before swearing the application to ensure the grounds are appropriate and sufficient to satisfy a JP.
   • If any material fact changes between the application and execution, document the change and, where necessary, seek the JP’s direction or a fresh warrant.

10. Quality assurance:

    • Adopt internal checklists that mirror the fields on Forms 1-3 to reduce omission errors (for example, confirming the JP’s name, signature and time, and the completeness of the seized items list).
    • Use checklists to ensure the oath was properly administered and that the applicant’s signature and the JP’s attestation are present.

These steps reflect the Regulations’ narrow but mandatory documentary obligations. Because the Regulations do not address substantive aspects of search and seizure (for example, retention, return, or remedies), compliance with these forms should be treated as necessary but not sufficient; separate compliance with the Act, evidence law, and internal police procedures remains essential.

Practitioners should also institute remedial practices for errors discovered post‑execution, such as immediate documentation of the error, notification to supervising legal officers, and, where necessary, steps to correct clerical mistakes (for example, by obtaining a supplemental JP endorsement) subject to legal advice. The Regulations leave open how courts will treat defects in forms; operational prudence is to treat the forms as the first line of legal defensibility for investigative actions under the Act.