Criminal Investigation (Identifying People) Regulations 2002

The Regulations introduce and clarify a small set of operational concepts that determine how identifying procedures under the Act are implemented.

Qualified person (r 4). The Regulations define who may perform identifying procedures. For non‑intimate procedures, a qualified person is (a) a forensic scientist approved by Gazette notice, (b) a forensic technician approved by Gazette notice, (c) a police officer who has satisfactorily completed a Commissioner‑approved course, or (d) a fisheries officer (appointed under Fish Resources Management Act s 11) who has completed such a course (r 4(1)). For the intimate procedure of taking a blood sample, qualification requires a police officer who has completed the approved course and the blood sample must be taken by lancet or finger blood sampling device (r 4(2)). Photography of private parts (an intimate identifying procedure) is permitted if the police officer has completed a course approved by the Commissioner (r 4(2a)). The Commissioner’s approval power is exercised by Gazette notice and may approve persons and courses, and may amend or revoke those notices (r 4(3)). The term “police officer” is defined for this regulation as someone appointed under Part I or IIIA of the Police Act 1892 (r 4(4)).

Forensic purpose (r 3A). The Regulations prescribe the forensic purpose for police officers to be the investigation of an offence or a suspected offence or offences generally. This is the statutory purpose for which police officers may be required to undergo identifying procedure under s 22(1) of the Act (r 3A).

Law enforcement officers and disclosure purposes (r 5 and r 5A). The Regulations expand and specify the persons who qualify as foreign/state/territory law enforcement officers for purposes of s 73(1)(e) of the Act. This includes interstate and Commonwealth police, officers under the Corruption, Crime and Misconduct Act 2003 s 179, certain Public Sector Commission officers in narrow circumstances, Customs officers, Commonwealth fisheries officers appointed under Fisheries Management Act 1991 s 83, and Migration Act 1958 authorised officers (r 5). Regulation 5A prescribes additional purposes for disclosure of identifying information under s 73(1)(n), specifically functions of the Australian Crime Commission (as then structured), certain Public Sector Management Act reviews or inquiries, and particular health services investigations or inquiries under the Health Services Act 2016.

DNA database architecture (r 5B). Regulation 5B is detailed and prescriptive about the DNA database structure. It defines, for database purposes, indexes: crime scene index, missing persons index, offenders index, suspects index, unknown deceased persons index, volunteers (limited purposes) index, and volunteers (unlimited purposes) index (r 5B(1)). It prescribes that these indexes are the indexes to which the Act’s definition of “DNA database” refers (r 5B(2)). The regulation spells out what each index contains: DNA profiles derived from particular types of material together with metadata about time and place of collection; and it draws a distinction between profiles derived from suspects or convicted offenders and those derived from crime scene material or unidentified deceased persons (r 5B(1) definitions). Notably the crime scene index explicitly excludes the DNA profile of a person reasonably suspected to have committed the offence if the profile was obtained from that person (r 5B(1) crime scene index).

Corresponding laws and authorised officers (r 6-7). Regulation 6 prescribes a table of Commonwealth, State and Territory forensic procedures legislation that are treated as corresponding laws for cross‑jurisdiction operations (r 6 and table). Regulation 7 prescribes the list of forensic authorisation officers in other jurisdictions who count as “authorised officers” for the Act (r 7 and table). Regulation 8 prescribes the WA Registrar’s office (Divisional Officer, Forensic Division, WA Police Force) (r 8).

Warrants and forms (r 10, Schedules 3-4). The Regulations set the forms for IP warrants (involved protected person) and IP warrants (suspect). Those forms include fields for the applicant, the person, the offence, the identifying particular (print, photograph, DNA profile, hair sample, impression, measurement, other), whether use for limited or unlimited forensic purposes is authorised, and whether identifying information can be placed on a forensic database. Each form contains the standard authorisation text: power to arrest and detain the person to perform the identifying procedure, and, where applicable, authorisation to perform the procedure against the person’s will or a responsible person’s will (Schedules 3-4). Each warrant may be executed only within a period not exceeding 14 days (Schedules 3-4).

Administrative publication and amendment (r 4(3)). The Regulations give the Commissioner of Police a publication channel , Gazette notices , to approve forensic scientists, forensic technicians, and training courses, and to amend or revoke those approvals (r 4(3)). That creates a publicly recorded, administrable mechanism for qualification decisions.

Compilation and amendment history. The compilation table included in the Regulations records multiple amendments (2002, 2005, 2006, 2007, 2009, 2014, 2015, 2016, 2017) and reprints, showing the Regulations have been used to implement changes such as DNA index architecture (r 5B inserted 2014) and new disclosure purposes (r 5A inserted 2017).

These core concepts are administrative and procedural. They do not create new criminal offences within the Regulations themselves; rather they define who may act and how certain forensic and data handling functions are structured under the Act.

The Regulations affect multiple categories of actors and institutions that participate in identification procedures, forensic database management, and inter‑jurisdictional forensic cooperation.

Police officers. The Regulations impose qualification requirements for police officers who perform identifying procedures. Police must complete Commissioner‑approved training to be a qualified person for non‑intimate procedures (r 4(1)(c)) and for intimate procedures such as blood sampling or photographing private parts (r 4(2)-(2a)). The definition of “police officer” for training and qualification purposes is tied to appointment under Parts I or IIIA of the Police Act 1892 (r 4(4)). Police are also the usual applicants for IP warrants; the warrant forms (Schedules 3-4) are drafted with “Applicant” blocks for rank and registered number or official title.

Fisheries officers. The office of fisheries officer appointed under s 11 of the Fish Resources Management Act 1994 is prescribed to be a public officer under s 5(1)(a) of the Act and may exercise “all the powers that the Act provides may be exercised by a public officer” (r 3(3)-(4)). Fisheries officers who have completed an approved course can be qualified persons for non‑intimate identifying procedures (r 4(1)(d)). Commonwealth fisheries officers appointed under the Fisheries Management Act 1991 s 83 are listed as law enforcement officers for disclosure purposes (r 5(c)).

Forensic scientists and technicians. The Commissioner may approve forensic scientists and forensic technicians by Gazette notice to make them qualified persons for non‑intimate procedures (r 4(1)(a)-(b), r 4(3)(a)). Forensic service leadership in other jurisdictions (e.g. Manager or Coordinator, Forensics, Australian Federal Police; Director, Victoria Forensic Services Department) are prescribed as “authorised officers” (r 7 table), affecting interstate cooperation.

Victims, suspects, volunteers and deceased persons. The DNA database index architecture directly affects individuals whose DNA or material is collected. The Regulations create separate index categories for suspects, offenders, crime scene material, missing persons, unknown deceased persons, and volunteers with limited or unlimited forensic use (r 5B(1)-(2)). The way a profile is indexed affects the forensic purposes for which it may be used (r 5B definitions require “together with the personal details” or “together with information about when and where the material was obtained”), and the Schedule warrant forms also ask whether database inclusion is authorised and whether the forensic use is limited or unlimited (Schedules 3-4).

Judicial officers. Magistrates and JPs appear on the warrant forms (Schedules 3-4). The forms fix the content and time limits (maximum 14 days) for IP warrants that magistrates/JPs must sign, thereby shaping judicial oversight of arrests and identifying procedures.

Interstate and Commonwealth agencies. Regulation 6 prescribes multiple interstate and Commonwealth forensic procedures Acts as corresponding laws; regulation 7 prescribes forensic leadership positions in other jurisdictions as authorised officers; regulation 5 lists interstate police, AFP, Commonwealth Customs, Migration officers and Corruption/Crime and Misconduct officers as law enforcement officers for disclosure and cooperation purposes. These prescriptions affect how WA agencies exchange identifying information and rely on interstate forensic cooperation.

Registrars and database operators. The Divisional Officer, Forensic Division, WA Police Force is the prescribed Registrar (r 8). Database operators and administrators are affected because r 5B prescribes index types and requires associated metadata (time and place of collection). The Regulations therefore define the data architecture and recordkeeping expectations for forensic databases.

Public service and oversight officers. Regulation 5 includes an officer appointed under the Corruption, Crime and Misconduct Act 2003 s 179 and a public service officer employed in the Public Sector Commission, but the latter only “if the forensic purpose of the disclosure concerns a matter that is relevant to the functions of the Public Sector Commissioner” under that Act (r 5(aa)-(ab)). Regulation 5A prescribes limited additional disclosure purposes, including functions of the Australian Crime Commission and certain Public Sector Management Act reviews (r 5A).

Magistrates, JP, and authorised officers in other jurisdictions. The Regulations affect magistrates in Western Australia through fixed warrant forms and overseas authorised officers through being named authorised officers in r 7. Those interstate officers will have operational visibility and possibly access to certain identifying information where cross‑jurisdictional processes are triggered.

In short, the Regulations reach a wide operational field: frontline officers and specialists who collect samples; magistrates who authorise warrants; database operators who index and store profiles; interstate and Commonwealth counterparts for information sharing; and certain oversight or investigative bodies for limited disclosure purposes. The Regulations allocate administrative responsibilities and specify minimum documentary, training, and indexation standards that these groups must meet.

The Regulations allocate administrative duties and vest specific decision points in named actors; they also create procedural rights and constraints as reflected in the warrant forms and index prescriptions.

Duties on the Commissioner of Police (r 4(3)). The Commissioner must, by Gazette notice, approve forensic scientists and technicians and approve courses of training for police and fisheries officers to be qualified persons. The Commissioner may amend or revoke those approvals via Gazette notice. The practical duty is publication, which creates public notice and an administrative record of qualification approvals. The Commissioner therefore controls entry to the class of qualified persons through an administrative approval process.

Training duties for police and fisheries officers (r 4(1)(c)-(d), (2), (2a)). Police and fisheries officers who will perform identifying procedures have the duty to satisfactorily complete Commissioner‑approved training courses to be able to conduct non‑intimate procedures, or certain intimate procedures such as blood sampling (r 4(2)) and photographing intimate body parts (r 4(2a)). The blood sampling duty includes a technical limitation: the sample must be taken by lancet or finger blood sampling device (r 4(2)(b)). Those requirements create training, equipment and credential maintenance duties for operational units.

Warrant form content and magistrates’ duties (Schedules 3-4, r 10). The Regulations dictate the content of IP warrants. Magistrates and JPs have a duty to ensure the warrant form is completed correctly and limited to a 14‑day execution period (Schedules 3 and 4). The form requires explicit fields for whether the identifying information may be placed on a forensic database and whether the forensic use is limited or unlimited. The form text authorises arrest, detention, and conducting the procedure even against a person’s will when the warrant so provides. Thus magistrates’ decisions (via the warrant document) directly determine whether a coercive identifying procedure is authorised and whether the resulting data may be put on a database.

Data handling duties (r 5B). Administrators of the DNA database must implement and maintain the indexes prescribed: crime scene, missing persons, offenders, suspects, unknown deceased persons, volunteers (limited), and volunteers (unlimited). Each index must contain not just DNA profiles but specified metadata: offenders and suspects indexes must include the personal details of the people whose profiles they are, and crime scene, missing persons and unknown deceased persons indexes must include information about when and where material was obtained (r 5B(1)). The regulation therefore prescribes particular recordkeeping elements and differentiates permitted forensic purposes by index type (r 5B(2)). The States and the database operator have a duty to respect those index boundaries when querying or disclosing data.

Disclosure purposes and limits (r 5A, r 5). The Regulations prescribe who is a law enforcement officer for s 73(1)(e) and enumerate additional permitted disclosure purposes for identifying information (r 5A). Agencies disclosing identifying information must therefore map their activity to these prescribed purposes and actors. A public sector officer in the Public Sector Commission can only be a law enforcement officer in a narrowed factual matrix (r 5(aa)-(ab)).

Rights and constraints for persons subjected to identifying procedures (Schedules 3-4, r 4). The warrant forms include authorisation to perform procedures against the will of the person or a responsible person, where applicable. The Regulations set out the limited time window for executing the warrant (not exceeding 14 days). Regulation 4 constrains intimate blood sampling to finger/lancet devices and ties intimate photographic procedures to approved training; these are technical limits that affect how a person will be processed. While the Regulations do not set out procedural safeguards like notices, compensation or appeal mechanisms, they do create procedural constraints that govern how long a person may be detained for an identifying procedure and what devices and personnel may be used.

Interoperability duties (r 6-7, r 8). The Regulations assign duties for inter‑jurisdictional cooperation by prescribing corresponding laws and authorised officers in other jurisdictions, thereby imposing coordination duties on forensic services and giving named interstate officers authority to interact with WA systems. The Registrar duty (Divisional Officer, Forensic Division, WA Police Force) pins responsibility for Registry tasks to a specific office (r 8).

Administrative publication and record maintenance duties. The Commissioner’s Gazette notices (r 4(3)) create a public register of approved persons and training courses. The Compilation table shows multiple amendments over time; agencies affected have a duty to track those amendments to remain compliant.

What the Regulations do not do. The Regulations do not themselves create criminal penalties or set out enforcement sanctions; they are procedural, definitional and administrative. For substantive offence provisions and penalty regimes one must read the Act. The Regulations also do not specify detailed privacy safeguards beyond index boundaries and metadata requirements; privacy and disclosure constraints are primarily governed by the Act and other laws.

In short, the Regulations distribute practical duties: approve and publish qualifications (Commissioner), train personnel (police/fisheries), operate databases to index and retain metadata, use prescribed warrant forms (magistrates/JPs and applicants), and coordinate with interstate authorised officers and corresponding laws. They create operational constraints on devices and timeframes and fix the categories of database use that affect individuals whose material or profiles are collected.

The Regulations themselves contain no expressed penalties, fine schedules or criminal sanction provisions. They are primarily administrative and procedural in character. This section therefore sets out where enforcement and sanctioning mechanisms are present in the Regulations and where readers must look to the Act or other legislation for penalties.

Absence of penalty provisions in the Regulations. Nowhere in the printed regulations is there a fine provision, a criminal offence, or a penal sanction. The schedules provide warrant forms and authorisations, and the substantive power to arrest, detain and perform procedures comes from the Act provisions cited on the forms (Schedules 3-4 refer to s 33 and s 46 of the Act respectively). The Regulations therefore operate as implementing instruments: enforcement of compliance with duties such as training approvals, recordkeeping and data indexing relies on the Act’s enforcement architecture and, where applicable, other statutes (for example, privacy laws, or the Acts listed in r 6) rather than on sanctions embedded in these Regulations.

Warrant enforcement mechanism (Schedules 3-4). The primary coercive mechanism detailed in the Regulations is the IP warrant. The warrant form expressly authorises “to arrest the … person … and to detain him or her for a reasonable period to do the identifying procedure specified” and, where applicable, “to do the identifying procedure … against the responsible person’s will” or against the suspect’s will as required (Schedules 3-4). Enforcement of that authority occurs through police execution of the warrant. The form limits execution to a period “Not to exceed 14 days” and requires a magistrate or JP signature. The Regulations therefore prescribe the procedural prerequisites and a time cap that constrain the exercise of coercive powers, but they do not themselves prescribe sanctions for non‑compliance with the form requirements.

Administrative oversight and publication (r 4(3)). The Commissioner’s power to approve and to amend or revoke approvals by Gazette notice creates an administrative enforcement lever. If a person or course is not approved or an approval is revoked, the person will not meet the definition of “qualified person” for the Act’s purposes, which affects the admissibility or legality of procedures they perform. That consequence flows from the Act’s reliance on the Regulations’ definitions, not from a penalty within the Regulations.

Data governance enforcement implied by index prescriptions (r 5B). Regulation 5B prescribes the structure and permitted contents of DNA database indexes and requires metadata such as when and where material was obtained. Enforcement of those indexing rules will be through the administrative practice of the Registrar and database operator and subject to any oversight in the Act and other applicable laws (for instance privacy, freedom of information and recordkeeping standards). The Regulations do not authorise a specific statutory sanction for improper indexation; improper handling would engage other legal remedies and oversight frameworks set out in the Act or elsewhere.

Inter‑jurisdictional cooperation and disclosure (r 5, r 5A, r 6-7). The Regulations delineate who counts as law enforcement officers for the purposes of disclosure and prescribe corresponding laws and authorised officers in other jurisdictions. Enforcement of appropriate disclosure practices relies on the Act’s disclosure provisions and intergovernmental arrangements, not on penalties in the Regulations.

Practical enforcement implication. Because the Regulations set qualifications, forms and data architecture, non‑compliance will typically have operational consequences: a person carrying out a procedure without being a “qualified person” risks that the procedure is unauthorised under the Act; a warrant executed without adherence to the prescribed form or time limit may be challengeable under the Act; and database operators failing to observe index rules may face administrative or legal consequences under privacy law or the Act. To determine specific sanctions, remedies or criminal liability, one must consult the Act itself and any related statutes referenced in the Regulations (for example, the Police Act 1892 definitions, the Fish Resources Management Act 1994, the Corruption, Crime and Misconduct Act 2003, and the list of corresponding laws in r 6).

In short, the Regulations provide the procedural framework and administrative levers that enable enforcement under the Act and related laws; they do not themselves prescribe fines or criminal penalties.

The Regulations explicitly cross‑reference multiple Commonwealth, State and Territory statutes and allocate roles and recognition across jurisdictions. This section maps those interactions as set out in the Regulations.

Corresponding laws (r 6). Regulation 6 lists a table of statutes from other jurisdictions treated as “corresponding laws” for the Act’s purposes. The list includes:

• Part 1D of the Crimes Act 1914 (Cth);
• Crimes (Forensic Procedures) Act 2000 (NSW);
• Part 3 Division 1 Subdivision 30A of the Crimes Act 1958 (Vic);
• Chapter 17 of the Police Powers and Responsibilities Act 2000 (Qld);
• Criminal Law (Forensic Procedures) Act 2007 (SA);
• Forensic Procedures Act 2000 (Tas);
• Police Administration Act Part VII Division 7 (NT);
• Youth Justice Act (NT) Part 2 Division 3;
• Correctional Services Act 2014 (NT) ss 51-52;
• Crimes (Forensic Procedures) Act 2000 (ACT).

By prescribing these acts as corresponding laws (r 6), the Regulations facilitate cross‑jurisdictional recognition of forensic procedures, samples, and databases. The operational effect is that WA agencies may treat work under those laws as equivalent for specified cooperative purposes under the Act.

Authorised officers and interstate cooperation (r 7). Regulation 7 prescribes a list of forensic leadership roles in other jurisdictions who count as “authorised officers” for the Act. The table includes, for example, the Manager or Coordinator, Forensics, AFP, the Commander, Forensic Services Group (NSW Police), Director, Victoria Forensic Services Department, and equivalents in Qld, SA, Tas, NT and ACT. This prescribes who interstate agencies may recognise when seeking forensic assistance or sharing identifying information.

Law enforcement officer definition and Commonwealth Acts (r 5). Regulation 5 specifies persons who are “law enforcement officers” (s 73(1)(e) of the Act) and includes members of other States’ police forces and the AFP, officers under the Corruption, Crime and Misconduct Act 2003 s 179, Customs officers under the Customs Act 1901 (Cth), fisheries officers appointed under Fisheries Management Act 1991 (Cth) s 83, and authorised officers under the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) for carrying out identification tests. This creates a framework for disclosure across Commonwealth/State bodies, enabling the sharing of identifying information for designated purposes.

Interaction with Public Sector Commission responsibilities (r 5, r 5A). Regulation 5 includes a public service officer employed in the Public Sector Commission as a law enforcement officer only if the forensic purpose is relevant to the Commissioner’s functions under the Corruption, Crime and Misconduct Act 2003 (r 5(ab)). Regulation 5A further prescribes disclosure of identifying information for certain Public Sector Management Act reviews, special inquiries or investigations. These provisions therefore interlock with public sector oversight functions and require agencies to map forensic disclosure requests to statutory functions in those Acts.

Health sector interaction (r 5A(c)). Regulation 5A(c) prescribes disclosure for investigations, inspections or audits under the Health Services Act 2016 Part 13 or inquiries under s 183 of that Act. This creates a direct interaction between forensic identifying information and health sector oversight and investigatory processes, subject to the Act’s disclosure provisions.

Fish resources and fisheries law (r 3, r 5). Regulation 3 prescribes fisheries officers (appointed under Fish Resources Management Act 1994 s 11) as public officers under the Act and grants them the Act’s public officer powers (r 3(3)-(4)). Regulation 5(c) separately recognises Commonwealth fisheries officers (Fisheries Management Act 1991 s 83) as law enforcement officers for disclosure purposes. The Regulations therefore align fisheries enforcement structures with the Act’s identification regime.

Registration, data and CrimTrac/ACIC/ACCI references (r 5A(2) defined term). Regulation 5A uses the term “Australian Crime Commission” and elsewhere references CrimTrac Agency in the defined terms list. The Regulations thus sit within the federal environment for national policing information and reflect the governmental architecture for national forensic data exchange. The DNA database indexes (r 5B) are structured in ways that correspond to national data exchange needs and cross‑jurisdictional matching.

Police Act and qualified person definition (r 4(4)). The Regulations explicitly define “police officer” for qualification purposes by reference to appointments under Parts I or IIIA of the Police Act 1892. This ties qualification thresholds to the Police Act’s appointment framework.

Warrants and magistrates/JPs (Schedules 3-4). The warrant forms in Schedules 3-4 reference statutory warrant powers in the Act (s 33 and s 46 respectively). The operational interaction is that WA magistrates and JPs must use the prescribed forms when exercising the Act’s warrant powers.

Privacy and other regimes (not expressly in Regulations). The Regulations prescribe database indexing and disclosure purposes but do not set out privacy standards or FOI exemptions. Practical interactions with privacy legislation, Freedom of Information legislation, or other protective frameworks will be governed by separate laws and the Act itself. The Regulations therefore must be read alongside the Act and other applicable statutes to determine lawful disclosure and privacy compliance.

Amendment mechanics and commencement day (r 5B). Regulation 5B’s definitions include a “commencement day” tied to the Criminal Investigation (Identifying People) Amendment Act 2013 s 28. That defines transitional interactions between the former s 76 and the present structure and shows how amendments to the Act are implemented through the Regulations.

In sum, the Regulations are designed for integration with a network of Commonwealth and state/territory statutes and operational bodies; they formalise which external laws and officers are recognised, how data indexes must be structured for inter‑jurisdictional matching and disclosure, and which roles inside and outside WA have access or recognition for forensic purposes. Proper operation therefore requires agencies to coordinate compliance across multiple statutes identified in r 5, r 5A and r 6-7.

The Regulations include a compilation table and specific amendment notes that show the instrument has been iteratively updated since first Gazettal. Below is an itemised timeline and description of material amendments recorded in the Regulations.

Initial Gazettal and early amendments

• Criminal Investigation (Identifying People) Regulations 2002 were published in the Government Gazette on 28 June 2002 and commenced 29 June 2002 (r 1-2, Compilation table).
• An Amendment Regulations instrument of 19 November 2002 (Gazette 19 Nov 2002 p. 5507-14) inserted several operative provisions, including the amended Schedules and r 3A, r 4, r 6-10 as recorded in the body of the Regulations (Compilation table; see Gazette 19 Nov 2002). Schedules 3 and 4 (IP warrant forms) were inserted by that amendment (Schedules 3-4 inserted: Gazette 19 Nov 2002 p. 5512-14).

Subsequent amendments and reprints

• 2005 Amendment Regulations (Gazette 14 Oct 2005 p. 4556) came into operation 14 Oct 2005 (Compilation table).
• 2006 Amendment Regulations (Gazette 27 Jun 2006 p. 2304-6) amended certain provisions including r 3 and r 4 (see marginal note in r 3). Notably r 3 was amended to prescribe fisheries officers and the scope of powers (r 3(3)-(4)).
• Reprint 1: Criminal Investigation (Identifying People) Regulations 2002 as at 23 Mar 2007 (Compilation table).
• 2007 Amendment Regulations included a reordering and deletion of Schedules 1-2 (Gazette 2 Oct 2007 p. 4972-3). Regulation 9 was deleted by Gazette 2 Oct 2007 p. 4973.
• Reprint 2: as at 11 Dec 2015, includes these amendments and consolidations.

Major content additions in 2014 and after

• 2014 Amendment Regulations (Gazette 15 Apr 2014 p. 1056-1060) inserted Regulation 5B (DNA database indexes) which outlined a detailed DNA database architecture, defined “commencement day” (tied to the Criminal Investigation (Identifying People) Amendment Act 2013 s 28), and prescribed the seven indexes (crime scene, missing persons, offenders, suspects, unknown deceased persons, volunteers limited and volunteers unlimited) (r 5B inserted: Gazette 15 Apr 2014 p. 1057-9). Schedule amendments were also made in 2014 (Schedules 3-4 amended: Gazette 15 Apr 2014 p. 1060).
• 2015 Amendment Regulations (Gazette 26 Jun 2015 p. 2269; and Amendment Regulations No. 2 2015 Gazette 3 Jul 2015 p. 2668-9) made further adjustments to definitions and to r 3 and r 4; Gazette references in r 3 show amendments on 27 Jun 2006 and 3 Jul 2015 p. 2668.
• 2016 Amendment Regulations (Gazette 14 Jun 2016 p. 1833-4) and 2017 Amendment Regulations (Gazette 23 Jun 2017 p. 3186-7; Amendment Regulations No. 2 of 21 Jul 2017 p. 4028) added and updated provisions; notably r 5A (Disclosure of identifying information) was inserted in 2017 to prescribe additional disclosure purposes (Gazette 23 Jun 2017 p. 3187; amended 21 Jul 2017 p. 4028).

Targeted insertions and deletions

• Regulation 3A (forensic purpose for police officers) was inserted by Gazette 19 Nov 2002 p. 5507 (r 3A inserted).
• Regulation 5B (DNA database indexes) was specifically inserted and is one of the more substantive additions, changing the data architecture for the DNA database (r 5B inserted: Gazette 15 Apr 2014 p. 1057-9).
• Regulation 5A was inserted in 2017 to expand disclosure purposes (r 5A inserted: Gazette 23 Jun 2017 p. 3187; amended 21 Jul 2017 p. 4028).
• Schedules 1 and 2 were deleted in 2007 (Gazette 2 Oct 2007 p. 4973), leaving Schedules 3 and 4 as the prescribed warrant forms.

Compilation and reprints

• The Regulations have at least two reprints catalogued in the Compilation table: Reprint 1 (as at 23 Mar 2007) and Reprint 2 (as at 11 Dec 2015). Each reprint incorporates amendments up to that date and provides a consolidated text. The Compilation table lists the Gazette entries and commencement dates for each amending instrument.

Transitional reference

• The definition “commencement day” in r 5B(1) refers to the day on which the Criminal Investigation (Identifying People) Amendment Act 2013 s 28 comes into operation (note 2 in the Regulations records that this was 16 April 2014). Regulation 5B includes references to “former section 76” and transitional arrangements for profiles that were lawfully in the former offenders index immediately before the commencement day, indicating the 2014 amendments reorganised the database framework.

Practical effect of amendments

• The 2014 insertion of r 5B materially restructured the DNA database into multiple, specified indexes and required accompanying metadata, changing how profiles are categorised and what purposes are permitted per index.
• The 2017 insertion of r 5A widened the expressly prescribed disclosure purposes for identifying information, adding functions relating to national policing information, public sector reviews, and health services oversight.

Overall the Regulations show an iterative pattern of amendment focused on training qualification, cross‑jurisdiction recognition, data architecture (notably DNA database indexing), and discrete disclosure purposes. Practitioners must consult the Compilation table and Gazette notices to track the operational date of each amendment and any transitional rules referenced in r 5B.

The Regulations themselves do not contain a litigation history, and the printed text provided contains no reported cases, judicial citations, or references to litigation outcomes. The document’s schedules and amendment notes do not list any judicial decisions.

Where litigation is likely to arise, and therefore where readers should look beyond the Regulations, is in the interface between these Regulations and the Act they support. Typical litigation themes that would engage the Regulations include:

• challenges to the validity or scope of IP warrants executed under the forms prescribed in Schedules 3-4; for example, challengeable matters might include whether the magistrate properly completed the form, whether the time limit (14 days) was exceeded, or whether the authorisation to perform a procedure against a person’s will complied with statutory constraints in the Act. The Regulations supply the form and time limit; the Act provides the substantive statutory powers and judicial review pathways.
• admissibility of identifying material collected by persons not meeting the “qualified person” definition as prescribed in r 4 (for instance, evidence collected by a person not approved by the Commissioner). The Regulations’ qualification mechanism by Gazette notice would be central to such a litigated issue.
• privacy, disclosure and database indexing disputes, particularly around use of DNA profiles in different indexes (r 5B). Litigation could arise where material placed in one index is used for purposes beyond those authorised for that index, or where an interstate disclosure is contested.
• cross‑jurisdictional disputes about whether a given interstate statute listed in r 6 is a valid corresponding law for a particular cooperative action.

However, no cases are named or recorded in the Regulations text. If litigation history is required for legal advice or precedential research, practitioners will need to search WA judicial decisions, administrative tribunal decisions, and appellate courts for cases that cite either the Criminal Investigation (Identifying People) Act 2002 or these Regulations, and for decisions that address the validity or application of the specific regulatory provisions (for example r 4 qualifications, r 5B indexing, or Schedules 3-4 warrant execution). The Regulations’ compilation table’s Gazettal references and reprints are useful for locating the precise regulatory text in force at any relevant historical date for litigation.

In short, the Regulations contain no litigation record in the printed instrument itself. For litigation precedents practitioners must search external case law repositories and decisions where the Act and its Regulations were material to the court’s reasoning.

This section flags specific provisions and practical points in the Regulations that often cause operational or legal risk if overlooked.

Commissioner’s Gazette approvals are the gate (r 4(3)). The Commissioner’s power to approve forensic scientists, forensic technicians, and courses by Gazette notice makes qualification conditional on administrative publication. A person’s practical legal authority to perform identifying procedures under the Act is contingent on that Gazette approval. Risk: practitioners and agencies must ensure that the person performing the procedure is approved and that the approval was in force at the time the procedure was performed. Failure to confirm the Gazette approval may render the procedure unauthorised under the Act even if the person is otherwise competent.

Technical limits on intimate blood sampling (r 4(2)). Regulation 4(2)(b) limits the intimate blood sampling method to lancet or finger blood sampling devices. If blood is taken by venepuncture or other methods, the Regulations indicate that the person may not meet the qualified person definition for that intimate procedure, depending on how the Act defines intimate procedures. Risk: use of alternative sampling devices could be characterised as procedurally invalid.

Photographing private parts requires approved training (r 4(2a)). Photography of intimate features is expressly allowed only when a police officer has satisfactorily completed a Commissioner‑approved course. Failure to document completion of that course, or performing such photography by unapproved staff, raises challenges about the legality, admissibility and privacy implications of the images.

Warrant time limit and proper form are binding (Schedules 3-4, r 10). Warrants must not exceed 14 days for execution. The forms are prescriptive and contain fields that magistrates/JPs must complete including whether the identifying information can be placed on a forensic database and whether the forensic purposes are limited or unlimited. Risk: executing a warrant beyond the 14‑day window, or without the required database inclusion direction, may be susceptible to challenge and could be treated as acting outside the authority provided.

Database index semantics and limits (r 5B). The DNA database is split across seven indexes with specific permitted uses and metadata requirements. For example, the crime scene index expressly excludes the DNA profile of a person reasonably suspected to have committed the offence if obtained from that person (r 5B(1) crime scene index). Offenders and suspects indexes must be accompanied by personal details; crime scene and unknown deceased indexes must include when and where material was obtained. Risk: placing a profile in the wrong index or omitting required metadata could create governance failures, contravene statutory limits on forensic use, and expose agencies to legal challenge or oversight scrutiny.

Interstate and Commonwealth officer recognition (r 5, r 7). The list of “law enforcement officers” and “authorised officers” includes particular Commonwealth and State offices. Practitioners should not assume all interstate offices are automatically authorised; only those listed are prescribed. Risk: relying on an unlisted interstate officer’s role for disclosure or operational cooperation could fall outside the Act’s prescribed recognition.

Ambiguity in “use for limited forensic purposes” vs “unlimited forensic purposes” (Schedules 3-4). The warrant forms provide checkboxes and fields for “Use for limited forensic purposes” and “Use for unlimited forensic purposes” but do not define those phrases in the Regulations. While r 5B distinguishes volunteers (limited) and volunteers (unlimited) indexes, the forms and Regulations leave scope for interpretive disputes about what particular forensic purposes count as limited or unlimited. Risk: inconsistent application across agencies of what counts as a limited forensic purpose.

Reliance on other statutes for enforcement and safeguards. The Regulations are procedural and definitional; they do not set out penalties or privacy protections. Risk: practitioners must integrate these Regulations with the Act, privacy laws, and other sectoral statutes (Health Services Act, Corruption, Crime and Misconduct Act) to assess compliance obligations. Overlooking cross‑statutory obligations is a common operational pitfall.

Transitional and historical data handling (r 5B(1) “former section 76” and “commencement day”). The r 5B definitions reference a “former section 76” and a “commencement day” linked to the 2013 Amendment Act. For historical data and profiles collected before that date, transitional rules may apply. Risk: failure to apply transitional classifications could result in misallocation across indexes and misuse of legacy profiles.

Registrar and records custody (r 8). The Regulations prescribe a single Registrar office (Divisional Officer, Forensic Division, WA Police Force). This concentrates registry duties and file custody; agencies must ensure that operational policies align with the Registrar’s records practice. Risk: decentralised practices in field units that diverge from Registrar records may produce compliance gaps.

Public Sector Commission and Corruption oversight narrowness (r 5(ab)). The inclusion of a public service officer employed in the Public Sector Commission as a law enforcement officer is conditional on a specified forensic purpose relevant to the Commissioner’s functions. Risk: mischaracterising the purposes for disclosure to the Public Sector Commission could exceed the narrow scope prescribed.

Forms must be struck out where inapplicable (Schedules 3-4). The forms instruct to strike out inapplicable parts. Practical risk: incomplete, incorrectly struck or altered forms may be challenged as informal or invalid warrants.

Gazette notice dependency (r 4(3)). Approvals and course recognitions are to be published in the Gazette. Agencies should confirm the current Gazette notices rather than relying on internal memoranda. Risk: internal lists or unpublicised approvals lack the formal status required by r 4.

In short, the operational gotchas cluster around administrative approvals (Commissioner/Gazette), strict form and time limits for warrants, precise indexation of DNA profiles, and the need to coordinate across other statutes and listed interstate bodies. These are concrete compliance points that require checklists and strong recordkeeping.

This section gives practical, source‑grounded steps to bring operations into conformity with the Regulations’ prescriptions. Compliance requires co‑ordination across police, forensic services, magistrates, database operators, and intergovernmental liaison units.

1. Confirm and document Commissioner approvals in the Gazette (r 4(3))

   • Before allowing anyone to perform a non‑intimate or intimate identifying procedure, check the Government Gazette for a Commissioner’s approval notice for the person (forensic scientist/technician) or for the course the person completed (police or fisheries officer). Maintain an internal register that records the Gazette notice reference, approval date and any revocation or amendment history. The Regulations make Gazette publication the recognition mechanism; absence from the Gazette indicates non‑approval.

2. Ensure training meets Commissioner‑approved courses (r 4(1)(c)-(d), (2), (2a))

   • For police and fisheries officers who will perform identifying procedures, ensure they have satisfactorily completed an approved course as published in the Gazette. Specifically document course completion certificates, training content, and the date of completion. For intimate blood sampling, confirm both course completion and that sampling devices used are lancet or finger blood sampling devices (r 4(2)(b)). For intimate photographic work, ensure the officer completed the course approved under r 4(2a).

3. Use the prescribed warrant forms and adhere to time limits (r 10, Schedules 3-4)

   • When applying for or issuing an IP warrant (involved protected person or suspect), use Schedule 3 or Schedule 4 respectively, strike out inapplicable parts, complete fields including whether database inclusion is authorised and whether the forensic purpose is limited/unlimited, and ensure the magistrate or JP signs the form. Note the execution period must not exceed 14 days. File dated copies of the warrant and the execution record centrally with the Registrar/forensic division.

4. Set up database indexing and metadata practices to match r 5B

   • Implement the seven indexes prescribed in r 5B(2): crime scene index, missing persons index, offenders index, suspects index, unknown deceased persons index, volunteers (limited), and volunteers (unlimited). For each index enforce the required metadata:
     • Crime scene, missing persons, unknown deceased: include information about when and where the material was obtained.
     • Offenders and suspects indexes: include the personal details of the people whose profiles they are.
     • For volunteers indexes, record whether the profile is subject to limits on forensic purposes (limited vs unlimited) and keep the personal details.
   • Implement procedures to ensure crime scene index does not include a profile “if the profile was obtained from that person” who is reasonably suspected to have committed the offence (r 5B(1) crime scene index).
   • Maintain an audit log of when and how each profile was indexed and any subsequent reclassification decisions.

5. Clarify “limited” vs “unlimited” forensic purposes and set access controls (r 5B, Schedules 3-4)

   • Although the Regulations do not define “limited forensic purposes” exhaustively, ensure an agency policy documents the categories of investigatory or analytical work authorised for each index and for volunteer profiles designated as limited. Enforce access controls so that queries or searches respect the limits on forensic uses attached to each index.

6. Coordinate disclosure decisions with prescribed law enforcement officers and disclosure purposes (r 5, r 5A)

   • Before disclosing identifying information to another agency or person, map the request to one of the prescribed bases in r 5 or r 5A. For Public Sector Commission officers, confirm the forensic purpose aligns with the Commissioner’s functions under the Corruption, Crime and Misconduct Act 2003 (r 5(ab)). For disclosures to the Australian Crime Commission (or its successor entities), confirm the request relates to the national policing information functions prescribed (r 5A(a)). Maintain written records of the statutory basis for disclosure.

7. Use the prescribed interstate/territory authorised officers and corresponding laws (r 6-7)

   • When engaging interstate forensic counterparts, check r 7’s list for authorised officer recognition and r 6 for corresponding laws. Where an interstate or Commonwealth body claims corresponding law status or authorisation, verify that it matches the Regulations’ tables. Document any cross‑jurisdictional requests and the legal justification under the listed corresponding law.

8. Centralise registration responsibilities with the prescribed Registrar (r 8)

   • The Divisional Officer, Forensic Division, WA Police Force is the Registrar. Centralise the filing of warrants, approvals, and DNA database indexing records with that office. Ensure chain‑of‑custody records and when/where metadata are accessible to the Registrar.

9. Maintain robust recordkeeping and audit trails

   • Because the Regulations reference metadata obligations (r 5B) and Gazette approvals (r 4(3)), maintain records of:
     • training completion and Gazette references;
     • warrant issuance, execution and detention periods;
     • database indexing entries with required metadata;
     • disclosure requests and statutory bases.
   • These records will be vital for demonstrating compliance and for responding to challenges or audits.

10. Update operational policies after each Gazette amendment and monitor the Compilation table

    • The Compilation table indicates multiple amendments over time. Assign a legal/regulatory officer to monitor the Government Gazette for additions, amendments or revocations under r 4(3) and for any Regulations amending these instruments. Update agency policies and training materials promptly when changes are published.

11. Integrate with privacy, public sector and health oversight requirements

    • Where disclosure is predicated on r 5A or involves health sector oversight (r 5A(c)), coordinate with legal teams to confirm compliance with privacy laws and sectoral obligations. Document the statutory purpose relied upon for disclosure and maintain minimal disclosure principles (only the information necessary for the prescribed purpose).

12. Prepare judiciary liaison templates for warrant applications

    • Given the forms in Schedules 3-4 are prescriptive, prepare standard application templates for magistrates that pre‑populate the required fields and attach supporting affidavits or grounds. Ensure applicants include an express decision on database inclusion and forensic purpose limits to avoid ambiguity.

13. Control device and procedure procurement

    • For intimate blood sampling, ensure only lancets or finger blood sampling devices are used as prescribed in r 4(2)(b). Procurement and stock records should tie devices to the approved use and training requirements.

14. Legal review for system design and inter‑operability

    • Before implementing cross‑jurisdictional databases or automated matching with external agencies, perform a legal review to ensure the database architecture and data sharing workflows comply with the index definitions in r 5B and corresponding law requirements in r 6.

Following these steps will align operational practices with the Regulations’ prescriptions. Remember the Regulations are part of a broader legal framework: consult the Criminal Investigation (Identifying People) Act 2002 for substantive powers, offences and judicial review mechanisms, and coordinate with privacy and other sectoral laws to assemble a complete compliance picture.