Criminal Investigation (Extraterritorial Offences) Regulations 2025

The Regulations embody three recurring concepts: prescribed forms, execution-period choices, and prescribed notice of seizure.

Prescribed forms. The central function of the instrument is to prescribe the exact text and layout of three forms used in the warrant and seizure process under the Act. The forms are set out in Schedule 1: Form 1 for warrants where the application is made personally, Form 2 for warrants where the application is made by telephone, and Form 3 as the notice of seizure to be completed by the executing police officer (r 4; r 5; Schedule 1). Each form includes fields that must be completed (for example, the magistrate’s name, applicant’s name, address of premises, and times) and standard authorising language.

Execution-period choices. The warrant forms incorporate a selectable set of options on whether the warrant may be executed between 7pm and 7am. Each warrant contains three mutually exclusive lines to be struck out as inapplicable: (i) “This warrant must not be executed between the hours of 7pm and 7am”; (ii) “This warrant may be executed between the hours of 7pm and 7am”; and (iii) “This warrant may be executed during the following hours between 7pm and 7am: [insert specified hours]” (Schedule 1 Forms 1-2). The forms therefore compel the issuing magistrate to make an explicit temporal choice about permissible execution hours and to record it on the face of the warrant.

Expiry and authorisation mechanics. Both warrant forms state that the warrant will expire one month after its date of issue, and both authorise “any police officer, with such assistants as the officer thinks necessary, to enter and search the premises described above and anything on those premises” (Schedule 1 Forms 1-2). The telephone application form requires the magistrate to record the facts furnished by the applicant and records that the applicant has undertaken to verify those facts (Form 2, paras 3-4). The wording used in the forms echoes an evidentiary threshold , that the magistrate is “satisfied that there are reasonable grounds to believe” an offence to which the Act applies has been or is intended to be committed and that there is an object relevant to the investigation on the premises (Schedule 1 Forms 1-2). The Regulations do not themselves define “reasonable grounds”; they supply the form in which the magistrate records satisfaction of that statutory test.

Notice of seizure. For the purposes of section 5(6)(a) of the Act, the Regulations prescribe Form 3 as the notice a police officer must complete and sign when objects are seized pursuant to a search warrant (r 5; Schedule 1 Form 3). Form 3 is captioned “NOTICE TO OCCUPIER” and is expressly “to be completed and signed by police officer executing search warrant.” It requires particulars of the premises, a description of things seized, the locations in which objects were found on the premises, the name of the magistrate who issued the warrant, the date/time/place of issue, and the name, rank and signature of the police officer together with the date.

Regulatory scope. The Regulations are narrow in scope. They do not create new powers or offences. They serve as a procedural adjunct to the Act by prescribing the forms and a few default administrative particulars (expiry period, execution-hour options). The instrument repeals an earlier subordinate instrument (2010 Regulations), indicating a straight replacement rather than an expansion of the regulatory perimeter (Schedule 2).

The Regulations allocate responsibilities and record-keeping duties among three categories of actor: magistrates, police officers, and occupiers of premises (as recipients of the seizure notice).

Magistrates. Magistrates are required to use one of two prescribed warrant forms when issuing search warrants under section 4 of the Act, depending on whether the application is personal or by telephone (r 4; Schedule 1 Forms 1-2). The personal-application form states that the magistrate has “received an application made personally and verified by affidavit” and that the magistrate is “satisfied that there are reasonable grounds” for believing an offence to which the Act applies has been, or is intended to be, committed and that an object relevant to the investigation is on the premises (Schedule 1 Form 1). The telephone-application form requires the magistrate to record the facts furnished to him or her and to note that the applicant has undertaken to verify those facts (Schedule 1 Form 2, paras 3-4). The forms therefore govern what the magistrate must record on the face of the warrant and impose a procedural distinction between personal and telephone applications. Magistrates are the decision-makers on issuing warrants and on selecting the execution-hours option to be recorded on the warrant.

Police officers. Police officers are the applicants (identified by name, rank and number on the application forms), the executors of the warrant (the warrant authorises “any police officer, with such assistants as the officer thinks necessary”), and the signatories to the seizure notice (Schedule 1 Forms 1-3). The Regulations require police officers to prepare and present either a personal application verified by affidavit (Form 1) or to furnish facts by telephone and undertake to verify them (Form 2). Police officers executing a warrant must record and sign the notice of seizure (Form 3), including the description of objects seized and locations where they were found. The forms create an administrative burden on police to complete specified fields and to ensure the necessary attestations are made to the issuing magistrate.

Occupiers of premises. Occupiers are recipients of the seizure notice prescribed by Form 3. The notice is expressly to be completed and signed by the executing police officer and is addressed “NOTICE TO OCCUPIER”. The occupier receives a formal record that the premises have been searched pursuant to a search warrant and that objects have been seized; the notice identifies the objects, locations on the premises, the magistrate who issued the warrant, and the time/place of issue. The Regulations therefore impose an informational duty on police officers towards occupiers when seizures occur.

Other affected entities. The Regulations repeal the 2010 Regulations (Schedule 2), so entities previously interacting with the 2010 instrument will now interact with the 2025 forms. No other classes of persons are made subject to distinct duties or rights in these Regulations. The Regulations do not themselves create offences, modify substantive criminal definitions, or confer civil liabilities; their effects are primarily administrative and evidential, shaping how warrants and seizure notices are recorded and communicated.

The Regulations impose narrowly defined duties on magistrates and police officers and produce rights for occupiers by mandating notice of seizure. They also enshrine a 1 month expiry period for warrants and require explicit choices about permissible execution hours.

Duties of magistrates. Where a magistrate issues a search warrant under section 4 of the Act, the magistrate must use the prescribed form applicable to the mode of application: Form 1 if the application is made personally, Form 2 if the application is made by telephone (r 4; Schedule 1 Forms 1-2). The forms require the magistrate to record that he or she is satisfied there are reasonable grounds to believe an offence to which the Act applies has been, or is intended to be, committed and that an object relevant to the investigation is on the premises. For telephone applications, the magistrate must record the facts furnished by the applicant and note that the applicant has undertaken to verify those facts (Schedule 1 Form 2, paras 3-4). The magistrate must also sign and date the warrant and record the place and time of issue (Schedule 1 Forms 1-2). The forms force the magistrate to make an explicit choice about the execution hours to be permitted or prohibited and to record that choice on the face of the warrant.

Duties of police officers. Police officers have several duties imposed by the forms. An officer applying personally must verify the application by affidavit as stated in Form 1. An officer applying by telephone must provide facts for the magistrate to record and must undertake to verify those facts (Form 2). Executing officers are authorised to enter and search under the warrant “with such assistants as the officer thinks necessary” (Schedule 1 Forms 1-2), and they must complete and sign the seizure notice (Form 3) when objects are seized. Form 3 requires the executing officer to provide particulars about the premises searched, describe objects seized, specify the locations where objects were found on the premises, and record the identity of the magistrate who issued the warrant and the date/time/place of issue. The executing officer must sign and date the notice. These duties create concrete evidentiary steps for police to follow in the warrant and seizure process.

Rights of occupiers. Occupiers have a right to receive the prescribed notice of seizure (Form 3) when objects are seized under a warrant (r 5; Schedule 1 Form 3). The notice provides occupiers with specific information: the address or description of premises searched, a description of objects seized, locations on the premises where those items were found, the name of the magistrate who issued the warrant, and the particulars of the warrant’s issue (date, time and place). The notice thereby creates a formal, traceable record provided to the occupier at the time of seizure.

Warrant expiry and temporal constraints. Both warrant forms state that “This warrant will expire 1 month after its date of issue” (Schedule 1 Forms 1-2). The magistrate must also select and indicate whether the warrant may be executed between 7pm and 7am, must not be executed between 7pm and 7am, or may be executed during particular hours within that 7pm-7am window, by striking out the inapplicable option. Those choices are recorded on the warrant and thus constrain when executing officers may rely on the warrant to enter premises.

Absence of new offences or penal provisions in the Regulations. The Regulations do not create penalties, criminal offences, or civil remedies. They prescribe forms and limited procedural particulars only. Any enforcement or sanctioning mechanism for non-compliance with the Act or with these forms would derive from the Act or other laws, not from these Regulations themselves (no penalty clauses are contained in the Regulations).

The Regulations do not introduce new penalties or create enforcement powers separate from the Act. They are procedural and prescriptive in nature; their primary enforcement mechanism is the managerial requirement to use the prescribed forms and to record specified particulars when issuing warrants and when seizing objects.

No penal provisions in the Regulations. Nowhere in the text of the Regulations is an offence created or a monetary or custodial penalty prescribed for failure to comply with a provision of these Regulations. The Regulations supply forms and administrative instructions (rr 4-5; Schedule 1) but do not prescribe sanctions for deviating from those forms. Consequently, the Regulations themselves impose no direct fine, imprisonment, or regulatory sanction.

Enforcement by administrative and evidential effect. The likely enforcement effect of the Regulations is evidential and administrative. Use of the prescribed forms will produce documentary records that can be relied upon in subsequent processes under the Act or in other proceedings. For example, a search warrant that uses Form 1 or Form 2 will contain the magistrate’s statements of satisfaction and the applicant’s details, and a completed Form 3 will provide a contemporaneous record of what was seized and where on the premises it was found. These records will affect how courts, tribunals or investigators assess compliance with legal thresholds in the Act, though the Regulations do not themselves specify that consequence. The Regulations therefore shape enforcement indirectly by standardising the documentation that accompanies warrants and seizures.

Operational compliance and administrative accountability. Because the forms require particular fields and signatures , the magistrate’s signature on the warrant and the police officer’s signature on Form 3 , administrative accountability is embedded in the documents. A failure by a magistrate to complete the appropriate form or to record required particulars may create evidential gaps or procedural irregularities discoverable in later review or litigation under the Act or other laws. The Regulations, however, do not themselves set out review processes, appeal rights, or remedies for defects in the forms. Any such remedies must be located in the Act or in other legal instruments; the Regulations only prescribe the form and content of the documents to be used.

Interaction with Act-based enforcement mechanisms. The Regulations repeatedly link to specific provisions of the Act (for example, r 4 cites section 4 of the Act, r 5 cites section 5(6)(a) of the Act). Enforcement of compliance with the Act’s substantive requirements, and any sanctions for contravening the Act, remain matters for the Act and the broader legal framework. The Regulations provide the documentary framework through which enforcement actors will demonstrate compliance with the Act’s procedural steps.

The Regulations are subordinate legislation made under the Criminal Investigation (Extraterritorial Offences) Act 1984 and are expressly drafted for the purposes of particular sections of that Act. Their interaction with other laws is primarily a function of that subordinate relationship and the procedural role of the prescribed forms.

Subordination to the Act. The Regulations operate under the authority of the Act, which is stated in the instrument heading (“under the Criminal Investigation (Extraterritorial Offences) Act 1984”) and in the text where particular provisions are directed to purposes of specific sections of the Act (r 4: “For the purposes of section 4 of the Act”; r 5: “For the purposes of section 5(6)(a) of the Act”). The Regulations therefore modify procedure only as authorised by the Act and supply the prescribed forms that operationalise the Act’s warrant and seizure provisions. Any conflict between the Regulations and the Act would be resolved in favour of the Act; the Regulations are an implementation instrument for the Act’s processes.

Evidence and procedural interface. The prescribed forms will interact with evidential and procedural rules in other parts of the legal system. Completed warrants and seizure notices will be physical or digital records that must be retained and produced for court hearings, disclosure processes or administrative reviews. The Regulations set the shape of those records but do not alter evidentiary rules outside the Forms. How other laws treat a warrant executed using these forms , for example, admissibility of seized items, suppression remedies, or chain-of-custody requirements , is not addressed in these Regulations and remains governed by the Act and other applicable statutory or common law rules.

Repeal of prior subordinate instrument. The Regulations repeal the Criminal Investigation (Extraterritorial Offences) Regulations 2010 (Schedule 2). Practically, this means that the 2010 instrument no longer prescribes forms or procedures; instead, the 2025 Regulations now supply the operative forms and administrative particulars. Any interactions that previously flowed from the 2010 Regulations will now be governed by the 2025 instrument. The text does not state substantive changes in legal effect arising from the repeal; the Schedule effect is the substitution of the new prescribed forms and particulars.

No cross-reference to other statutes in the Regulations. The Regulations do not refer to other Acts, regulations, or general administrative law provisions. They do not, for example, incorporate by reference other procedural codes, evidence rules, or civil liability regimes. Their scope is deliberately narrow: identify the Act, prescribe forms for specific Act provisions, set commencement, and repeal the prior instrument. Consequently, they interact with other laws only insofar as the forms a magistrate or police officer completes will later be used in processes under those other laws.

Administrative and record-keeping law. The Forms require completion of administrative details that will be relevant under records-management, disclosure, or investigatory procedures under other laws. For instance, the requirement to record the precise date, time and place of issue of a warrant and to sign the document provides a traceable record that other legal processes will use. The Regulations, however, do not mandate retention periods, disclosure obligations, or other record-keeping standards; those are matters for other legal instruments or administrative practice.

The Regulations are a principal subordinate instrument dated 2025 and replace the previous regulations made in 2010. The text provides a short legislative history entry and a formal repeal of the earlier instrument.

Date and commencement. The Regulations are cited as the Criminal Investigation (Extraterritorial Offences) Regulations 2025 (r 1). Clause 2 provides that these Regulations “come into operation on the day on which they are made” (r 2). The Legislative history block at the end of the instrument records the Gazettal reference , Gazette 31.7.2025 p2858 , and that commencement occurred on 31 July 2025 (Legislative history; Principal regulations table).

Repeal of prior Regulations. Schedule 2 expressly repeals the Criminal Investigation (Extraterritorial Offences) Regulations 2010. The repeal is absolute: “The Criminal Investigation (Extraterritorial Offences) Regulations 2010 are repealed.” The 2010 instrument is therefore no longer in force as of the commencement date. The text does not provide a transitional regime or savings provisions; the repeal operates as included in Schedule 2 without further elaboration.

No amending provisions within the instrument. The 2025 Regulations do not themselves record any amendments or incremental changes to earlier subordinate instruments other than the comprehensive repeal in Schedule 2. The Regulations substitute the forms and administrative particulars they prescribe for whatever forms or particulars the 2010 Regulations had provided.

No explanatory memorandum or amendment schedule included in the text. The instrument as provided contains a brief “Legislative history” note with the Gazettal and commencement details, but does not contain an Explanatory Memorandum, notes on policy changes, or an itemisation of differences from the 2010 Regulations. The text is therefore the primary source for identifying what has changed: the content and text of the forms themselves and the repeal of the 2010 Regulations by Schedule 2.

Implications for prior actions. The Regulations do not state whether warrants issued under the now-repealed 2010 Regulations remain valid if issued prior to repeal. No savings or transitional provision is specified in the text provided. Practitioners should therefore note the repeal (Schedule 2) and the commencement date (r 2) as the formal points at which the new Forms take legal effect.

The instrument itself contains no litigation history entries, case citations, judicial interpretations, or references to proceedings. The Legislative history section records only the Gazettal reference and commencement of the 2025 Regulations. The Regulations therefore have no internal record of prior judicial consideration or case law interpretation embedded in the text provided.

Implications of absence of litigation history. Because the Regulations are prescriptive forms and are newly enacted (with repeal of the 2010 Regulations), there is no jurisprudence recorded within the instrument to guide interpretation of the Forms’ wording or the consequences of defects in their completion. Any legal consequences of using or failing to use these Forms, or defects in the Forms as completed, will be determined by the Act and by courts or tribunals in the future; such decisions are not recorded in the instrument itself.

Practical consequence for practitioners. The absence of recorded litigation makes it important for practitioners to attend closely to the precise wording and mandatory fields in the prescribed forms when advising clients or when preparing or authorising warrants. The forms set evidential expectations , for example, that the magistrate records satisfaction as to “reasonable grounds” and that a telephone applicant undertakes to verify facts furnished to the magistrate , but the legal significance of omissions or variations has not been judicially mapped out in the instrument. Where disputes arise about the validity of a warrant, practitioners will need to rely on the Act, general principles of statutory interpretation, and future case law rather than any litigation history supplied by these Regulations.

Monitoring future decisions. Because the Regulations supply uniform, prescribed wording for warrants and seizure notices, litigation that challenges the legality of searches or the sufficiency of investigation records will likely focus on whether the prescribed forms were properly completed in accordance with the Act and the Regulations. Until such cases are reported, the instrument itself contains no litigation guidance.

The Regulations are short, but several practical pitfalls arise from their text and from the interaction of the prescribed forms with operational practice. These points are drawn from the precise wording of the Forms and the limited provisions in the instrument.

1. Two distinct application routes, two distinct obligations. The magistrate must use a different form depending on whether the application was personal or by telephone (r 4). Form 1 expressly requires an application “made personally and verified by affidavit”; Form 2 requires the magistrate to record the facts furnished and to note that the applicant “has undertaken to verify those facts” (Schedule 1 Forms 1-2). Using the wrong form may create an evidential gap: a warrant purporting to be issued on a personal affidavit but accompanied in record only by the telephone form language could mischaracterise the mode of application. Practitioners should verify which route was used and ensure the corresponding form was completed.

2. Execution-hours choices must be struck out appropriately. Both warrant forms include three mutually exclusive statements about execution between 7pm and 7am and instruct to “Strike out whichever is inapplicable” (Schedule 1 Forms 1-2). Failure to strike out the inapplicable option leaves the face of the warrant ambiguous about when it may be executed. That ambiguity could be material to challenges to searches executed at night. The magistrate must make a clear choice and the executing officer must confirm that choice before entry.

3. One-month expiry fixed on the face of the warrant. Each warrant states that it “will expire 1 month after its date of issue” (Schedule 1 Forms 1-2). Practitioners should note the short fixed shelf-life of the authority on the face of the document. Police executing a warrant after the one-month expiry date will not be relying on a current warrant under the form as drafted; whether an expired warrant can still authorise entry would depend on the Act and broader law, not the Regulation’s prescribed text.

4. Telephone applications require facts to be recorded and an undertaking to verify. Form 2 requires the magistrate to record the facts furnished by the applicant and to note that the applicant has undertaken to verify those facts (Schedule 1 Form 2, paras 3-4). If facts were not sufficiently supplied to the magistrate at the time, or if the undertaking to verify is not recorded, this will create an evidentiary gap. The Regulations do not provide a template for the later verification, nor do they set out timelines for verification.

5. Form 3 is expressly to be completed and signed by the executing officer. The notice to occupier must be completed and signed by the police officer executing the search warrant (Schedule 1 Form 3 header and signature block). If no such notice is provided or it lacks the required particulars (for example, the description of seized objects or the magistrate’s identity), the occupier will lack an immediate contemporaneous record of what was seized. The Regulations do not prescribe follow-up service or preservation obligations; they only prescribe the form and signature requirement.

6. Repeal of the 2010 Regulations with no transitional text. Schedule 2 repeals the 2010 Regulations but contains no transitional or savings provisions. It is not specified whether forms used under the 2010 Regulations remain valid for actions commenced prior to commencement of the 2025 Regulations. Practitioners should be attentive to the commencement date (r 2) and consider whether steps taken under the 2010 instrument require additional attention, but the Regulations themselves supply no guidance.

7. The Regulations do not define key terms. The Forms require the magistrate to be “satisfied that there are reasonable grounds to believe” an offence to which the Act applies has been or is intended to be committed and that there is an object relevant to the investigation. The Regulations do not define “reasonable grounds” or “object relevant to the investigation”; interpretive questions about these thresholds remain matters for the Act and for potential judicial consideration. The prescribed forms, however, embed those phrases as the magistrate’s stated standard.

8. Administrative details required on the face of the warrant. The forms require date, time and place of issue, and signature of the magistrate (Schedule 1 Forms 1-2). Similarly, Form 3 requires the magistrate’s name and the date/time/place of issue, as well as the executing officer’s name, rank and signature (Schedule 1 Form 3). Omitting or misrecording these items may create procedural irregularities.

9. No explicit record retention or service method. The Regulations require completion of specified information on the face of documents but do not specify how long the executing agency must retain completed forms, whether occupiers must be given copies, or whether the forms must be filed in Court or otherwise. While Form 3 is headed “NOTICE TO OCCUPIER”, the Regulations do not specify whether a copy must also be filed with a magistrate or central registry.

10. Silence on use of assistants and scope of search. The warrant authorises “any police officer, with such assistants as the officer thinks necessary, to enter and search the premises described above and anything on those premises” (Schedule 1 Forms 1-2). The Regulations do not limit the number or identity of assistants, nor do they prescribe limitations on the scope of “anything on those premises”. Practical disputes may arise about proportionality, scope and the precise meaning of “anything” in given circumstances; the Regulations provide no clarifying language.

This section sets out practical, source-grounded steps for magistrates, police officers and occupiers to comply with the Regulations’ requirements. Each step tracks the language and fields in the prescribed forms and the limited rules in the body of the instrument.

For magistrates issuing warrants

• Select the correct form. Use Schedule 1 Form 1 for applications made personally and verified by affidavit; use Schedule 1 Form 2 for applications made by telephone (r 4; Schedule 1 Forms 1-2).

• Record required particulars. On the chosen form, ensure the magistrate’s name is inserted, and that the warrant contains the applicant’s name, rank and number, the address or description of the premises to be searched, and the magistrate’s statement that he or she is satisfied there are reasonable grounds to believe an offence to which the Act applies has been, or is intended to be, committed and that there is an object relevant to the investigation on the premises (Schedule 1 Forms 1-2).

• Telephone-route particulars. If the application is by telephone, ensure paragraph 3 of Form 2 records the facts furnished to you and paragraph 4 records that the applicant has undertaken to verify those facts (Schedule 1 Form 2 paras 3-4). Do not issue a telephone-form warrant without these items recorded.

• Choose and record execution-hour option. On the face of the warrant strike out whichever execution-hours option is inapplicable so only one statement remains: either “must not be executed between 7pm and 7am”, “may be executed between 7pm and 7am”, or “may be executed during the following hours between 7pm and 7am: [insert specified hours]” (Schedule 1 Forms 1-2).

• Insert date/time/place and sign. Complete the date, time and place of issue fields and sign the warrant in the space provided (Schedule 1 Forms 1-2).

• Note warrant expiry. The warrant will expire one month after its date of issue; be aware of that temporal limit when issuing authority (Schedule 1 Forms 1-2).

For police officers applying for or executing warrants

• Verify mode of application. When applying in person, prepare and present an application verified by affidavit as recorded in Form 1. When applying by telephone, prepare the facts you will furnish and be prepared to undertake to verify them for the magistrate’s record, as required by Form 2 (Schedule 1 Forms 1-2).

• Provide identifying particulars. Ensure your name, rank and number are recorded on the application (Schedule 1 Forms 1-2).

• After execution, complete Form 3. If objects are seized pursuant to the warrant, complete Schedule 1 Form 3 , the “NOTICE TO OCCUPIER”. That notice must be completed and signed by the police officer executing the search warrant. Include the address/description of the premises, a description of the objects seized, the locations within the premises where items were found, the name of the magistrate who issued the warrant and the date/time/place of issue, and the name, rank and signature of the executing officer (Schedule 1 Form 3).

• Provide the notice to the occupier. Form 3 is captioned “NOTICE TO OCCUPIER”, and must be completed and signed by the executing officer. While the Regulations do not specify whether a copy must be left with the occupier, the heading and form structure indicate the occupier should be provided with the completed notice at the time of seizure (Schedule 1 Form 3). Practitioners should ensure occupiers receive the form contemporaneously to avoid ambiguity.

• Observe execution-hour restrictions. Before entry, confirm that the execution occurs within the option recorded on the face of the warrant. If the magistrate struck out “must not be executed between 7pm and 7am”, do not execute at night; if a restricted subset of hours was specified, comply with those hours (Schedule 1 Forms 1-2).

• Note assistants and scope. The warrant authorises any police officer, with such assistants as thought necessary, to enter and search the premises and anything on those premises. Executing officers should record the identity of assistants where appropriate and ensure their actions align with the scope recorded in the warrant (Schedule 1 Forms 1-2).

Records and administrative practice

• Retain completed forms. The Regulations do not set retention periods, but completed warrants and seizure notices are primary records of the exercise of search powers. Agencies should adopt retention, filing and disclosure procedures that preserve the completed Schedule 1 forms for any subsequent legal, auditing or investigative process.

• Maintain chain of custody and evidential notes. Form 3 requires a description of objects seized and the locations where they were found, which assists in establishing chain-of-custody. Executing officers should contemporaneously record any further details necessary for evidential purposes, even if not captured on the prescribed Form 3.

• Verify verification post-telephone application. Form 2 requires the applicant’s undertaking to verify facts furnished by telephone. Implement an internal process to ensure that the undertaking is fulfilled , for example, by obtaining the verifying affidavit or statement promptly following the telephone application , and document when and how verification was completed.

• Handle pre-commencement warrants with care. Because Schedule 2 repeals the 2010 Regulations and no transitional wording is provided, any action taken under the earlier instrument should be carefully audited against dates of issue and the commencement date of the 2025 Regulations (r 2; Schedule 2). Where necessary, confirm whether files and records comply with the current Forms.

Advising occupiers and counsel

• Provide the occupier with Form 3 copy. When objects are seized, give the occupier the completed Form 3 and keep a copy on file; the notice provides essential information the occupier can use in legal advice or challenges.

• If a form appears incomplete, seek clarification. If a warrant or seizure notice is missing required particulars (for example, no date/time/place or no magistrate’s name), advise clients that the document may be deficient and that further inquiry should be made with the executing agency or magistracy.

• Preserve evidence of timing and execution. Given the importance of execution-hour choices and the fixed one-month expiry, preserve contemporaneous evidence (for example, photographs, time-stamped logs, witness statements) that corroborate the factual record on which the magistrate relied and the timing of execution.

Following the narrow and specific requirements of the prescribed Forms will ensure compliance with the Regulations’ documentary and communication obligations. The Regulations do not authorise substantive investigatory steps beyond those in the Act, nor do they change the legal thresholds in the Act; they standardise how key procedural steps are recorded and communicated.