Criminal Law (Forensic Procedures) Regulations 2022

The regulations operationalise several recurring regulatory concepts in the Act: corresponding law alignment, procedural notice, notification of test results, qualification to perform forensic procedures, confidentiality and scientific disclosure, and administrative registration. Each concept is given a clear, limited scope.

Corresponding laws: regulation 4 prescribes a list of Commonwealth, state and territory statutes that count as corresponding laws for the Act’s definition of that term (s 3(1) of the Act). The list reaches across jurisdictions , ACT, Commonwealth, New South Wales, Northern Territory, Queensland, Tasmania, Victoria and Western Australia , and specifically identifies Parts, Chapters or Acts (for example, Part ID of the Crimes Act 1914 (Cth), Chapter 17 of Queensland’s Police Powers and Responsibilities Act 2000). The practical effect is to enable cross-registration and recognition mechanisms under the Act (further engaged by regulation 11).

Notice and notification: Regulation 5 imposes a pre-procedure written-notice obligation on the authorising officer before blood is taken pursuant to s 20B of the Act. The notice must explain that blood will be taken and will be tested for communicable diseases, require reasonable steps where the subject is under 16 to notify parents/guardians, and invite nomination of a medical practitioner to receive test results (reg 5(1)). Importantly, regulation 5(2) states that failure to comply with reg 5(1) does not invalidate the forensic procedure or the authority to perform the procedure or testing. Regulations 6 and 7 require the Commissioner of Police to take “reasonable steps” to notify the person and any affected person of testing results and treat provision of results to a nominated medical practitioner as compliance (regs 6(1)-(2), 7(1)-(2)). Regulation 7 defines “affected person” by reference to prescribed employment in s 20B(1)(b) of the Act (reg 7(3)).

Persons qualified: Regulation 8 specifies who is qualified to carry out forensic procedures for the purposes of sections 24(1)(b) and 55(5) of the Act. Categories are: registered nurses (qualified for all procedures except taking dental impressions), police officers or Commissioner‑authorised persons (qualified to carry out certain non‑intrusive procedures such as taking prints or examining parts of the body), and persons who have satisfactorily completed a Ministerially‑approved course (qualified for a defined list of non‑intrusive sampling procedures including buccal swabs, hair, fingernail/toenail samples, finger‑prick blood sampling for DNA in limited circumstances, and wound casts) (reg 8(1)). Regulation 8(2) adds a procedural constraint that finger‑prick blood for DNA should only be used where buccal swab is not appropriate.

Confidentiality and scientific release: Regulation 9 prescribes a purpose connected to administration of Part 2 Division 4 of the Act for the operation of the confidentiality limitation in s 50(1)(p) of the Act. Regulation 10 prescribes the person for the purposes of s 50A(1) as the individual performing the duties, or acting in the position, of Director of Forensic Science SA , making that office the authority for release and disclosure for scientific purposes.

Registration and evidentiary effect: Regulation 11 obliges the Minister to maintain a register (which may be electronic) of orders under section 56(2) of the Act, lists the particulars to be recorded (date/place, court/authority, name of person, terms of order), enables registration of corresponding-law orders upon request, and provides that an apparently genuine certified copy or extract of the register is admissible as proof in the absence of contrary proof (reg 11(1)-(4)).

Repeal: The instrument repeals the 2007 regulations (Schedule 1), meaning the 2022 regulations are the operative subordinate instrument for the Act since their commencement on the day they were made (regulation 2; Legislative history).

The regulations affect several clearly identified groups of persons and public officers by creating procedural duties, notification entitlements, qualification requirements and administrative obligations.

Persons subject to forensic procedures: Any person on whom a forensic procedure is performed under s 20B of the Act is directly affected by the notice and notification rules (regulations 5-6). They must be given written notice that blood will be taken and tested for communicable diseases before the procedure (reg 5(1)(a)). They are also entitled to be notified of test results, subject to the Commissioner taking “reasonable steps” (reg 6(1)). If under 16, their parent or guardian is similarly covered by these notice and notification entitlements (reg 5(1)(b), regs 6(1), 7(1)).

Affected persons employed in prescribed roles: Regulation 7 specifically requires the Commissioner of Police to take reasonable steps to notify “each affected person” of communicable disease test results. The regulation defines “affected person” in relation to a forensic procedure as a person engaged in the prescribed employment referred to in section 20B(1)(b) of the Act who likely came into contact with or was otherwise exposed to the biological material (reg 7(3)). Practically, this maps to certain categories of workers (for example, emergency responders, health workers, police) identified in the Act; the regulation operationalises the notification duty towards them.

Police and authorised officers: The regulations impose operational duties on law enforcement. An “authorising officer” must provide the pre-procedure written notice for blood tests (reg 5(1)). The Commissioner of Police must take reasonable steps to notify persons and affected persons of communicable-disease test results (regs 6-7). Police officers are also specified as qualified to perform some non‑intrusive forensic procedures (reg 8(1)(b)), and the Commissioner may authorise persons to perform those tasks.

Health practitioners and training course recipients: Registered nurses are explicitly qualified to perform all forensic procedures other than dental impressions (reg 8(1)(a)). Persons who have satisfactorily completed a Minister‑approved course may perform a defined set of non‑intrusive sampling procedures (reg 8(1)(c)). The regulations therefore affect the professional practice of nurses, persons who operate in forensic sampling roles and the bodies that provide training , those courses must be approved by the Minister to confer qualification status.

Minister and administrative staff: The Minister is required to maintain a register of orders (reg 11(1)) and may enter arrangements with Ministers responsible for corresponding laws to register orders made under those laws (reg 11(3)). The Minister’s staff will manage the register, elect whether to keep it electronically, and process registration requests. The Minister’s administrative processes will also be the source of certified copies or extracts used as evidence in proceedings (reg 11(4)).

Director of Forensic Science SA: Regulation 10 prescribes the person performing the duties, or holding or acting in the position, of Director of Forensic Science SA as the prescribed authority for the purposes of releasing and disclosing materials for scientific purposes under s 50A of the Act. That office will therefore be the gatekeeper for scientific-use releases.

Persons under 16 and their parents/guardians: Special procedural protection is included for minors: the authorising officer must take reasonable steps to give parents/guardians written notice (reg 5(1)(b)) and notifications of results must be taken to include parents/guardians where the subject or affected person is under 16 (regs 6(1), 7(1)).

Legal practitioners and courts: The ministerial register and evidentiary provision (reg 11(4)) affect how orders under the Act and corresponding laws are proved in court. Courts and litigants will use certified extracts of the register as prima facie proof of the recorded particulars unless contrary proof is provided.

Persons seeking or providing medical information: The regulations give an express avenue for results to be delivered to a medical practitioner nominated by the person (regs 5(1)(c), 6(2), 7(2)). That creates a practical mechanism for medical confidentiality and clinical follow-up, and affects physicians who may be nominated.

Groups not directly affected: The regulations do not, on their face, change evidentiary admissibility of samples in criminal trials, nor do they create offences or civil causes of action. They do not themselves change the Act’s substantive thresholds for intrusive procedures; rather they impose administrative steps and define performing-party qualifications.

This section lists the main duties imposed by the regulations and the corresponding rights or entitlements they create, with specific references.

Authorising officer’s notice duty: Before carrying out a blood forensic procedure under s 20B of the Act, the authorising officer must give written notice to the person that blood will be taken and tested for communicable diseases (regulation 5(1)(a)(i)-(ii)). If the person is under 16, the officer must take reasonable steps to give the person’s parent or guardian written notice (reg 5(1)(b)). The officer must invite the person (or parent/guardian of a minor) to nominate a medical practitioner to receive test results (reg 5(1)(c)). However, regulation 5(2) expressly states that failure to comply with the notice requirement does not invalidate the forensic procedure nor affect the authority to perform the procedure or related testing. That creates an administrative duty with no automatic procedural remedy of invalidation in the regulations themselves.

Commissioner of Police’s notification duties: The Commissioner must take reasonable steps to notify the person who underwent the forensic procedure, and the parent or guardian if under 16, of the results of communicable disease testing on the material obtained (regulation 6(1)). The Commissioner is taken to have complied by providing results to a medical practitioner nominated by the person (regulation 6(2)). Parallel duties apply to “affected persons” , the Commissioner must take reasonable steps to notify each affected person and, where under 16, their parent or guardian (regulation 7(1)). Again, provision of results to a nominated medical practitioner is treated as compliance (regulation 7(2)).

Qualification duties and limits for performers: Regulation 8 sets out who is qualified to carry out forensic procedures for the purposes of sections 24(1)(b) and 55(5) of the Act. Duties here are less about active conduct and more about restricting who may be treated as qualified. Registered nurses are qualified for all procedures except dental impressions (reg 8(1)(a)). Police officers or Commissioner‑authorised persons may perform certain non‑intrusive procedures (reg 8(1)(b)). Persons who have completed a Minister‑approved course are qualified to carry out a specified list of non‑intrusive procedures (reg 8(1)(c)). A procedural constraint is added for DNA via finger‑prick: it should only be used if a buccal swab is not appropriate in the circumstances (reg 8(2)).

Minister’s register duties: The Minister must maintain a register of orders for section 56(2) purposes (regulation 11(1)). The register may be electronic and must contain four particulars for each order (date/place, court/authority, name of person, terms) (regulation 11(2)). The Minister is required to register orders made under corresponding laws where there is an arrangement and a request from the other Minister (regulation 11(3)). An apparently genuine certified copy or extract of the register is admissible as proof in the absence of contrary proof (regulation 11(4)). The duty to maintain the register is explicit; the form and substance of entries are prescribed.

Confidentiality and scientific release: Regulation 9 prescribes a purpose connected to administration of Part 2 Division 4 for the confidentiality provision in s 50(1)(p), and regulation 10 prescribes the Director of Forensic Science SA as the authority for release under s 50A(1). Those two regulations create administrative rights for release and set institutional responsibility for scientific-use decisions.

Rights to nominate and receive results: A person (or parent/guardian of a minor) is invited to nominate a medical practitioner to receive test results (reg 5(1)(c)). Providing results to that nominated practitioner satisfies the Commissioner’s notification duties (regulations 6(2) and 7(2)). The regulations therefore create an entitlement for subjects (and certain affected persons) to have results communicated via a nominated clinician.

Standards and standards of proof: Several duties use the phrase “take reasonable steps” (regulations 6(1), 7(1), 5(1)(b) uses “take reasonable steps” for parent/guardian notice). That introduces a reasonableness standard rather than a strict, absolute duty; how that standard is interpreted will depend on operational protocols and, potentially, judicial review or dispute in litigation, although the regulations themselves do not define the term.

Absence of invalidation remedy: The regulations explicitly remove a procedural invalidation remedy for failing the authorising‑officer notice duty by saying non‑compliance does not invalidate the forensic procedure or testing (regulation 5(2)). This is the most direct instance in the instrument where a statutory duty is detached from a procedural consequence.

Evidentiary convenience for registration: An apparently genuine certified copy or extract of the Register is accepted, absent proof to the contrary, as proof of the matters specified (regulation 11(4)). That places an evidentiary burden on a challenging party to disprove the register entries rather than requiring the registering agency to prove the entries afresh.

Scope and limits: The regulations do not create offences, specify penalties, or change the Act’s substantive thresholds for compulsory intrusive procedures. They allocate duties predominantly to the authorising officer, the Commissioner of Police, the Minister, and the Director of Forensic Science SA, and confer nomination/notification rights on subjects, affected persons, and parents/guardians of minors.

The regulations themselves do not create criminal offences or civil penalties; there are no express monetary fines, short‑form offences or enforcement provisions contained within the text. Enforcement of duties set out in the regulations therefore relies on administrative mechanisms, the underlying Act, and general legal remedies outside the regulations. The instrument prescribes administrative processes and evidentiary treatments rather than sanctioning mechanisms.

Administrative enforcement and accountability: The primary mechanisms for enforcement in the regulations are administrative: the Minister’s maintenance of a register (regulation 11) and the Commissioner of Police’s obligations to take reasonable steps to notify (regulations 6-7). The register is equipped with an evidentiary presumption: an apparently genuine certified copy or extract of the register is accepted in the absence of proof to the contrary as proof of the matters specified (regulation 11(4)). That operates as administrative enforcement by making it easier to rely on the register in proceedings, and shifts the burden to challengers to disprove entries.

Procedural consequence exclusion: The regulations specify that failure to comply with the pre‑procedure written notice obligation in regulation 5(1) does not invalidate the forensic procedure or affect the authority to perform the procedure and any testing on material obtained (regulation 5(2)). That expressly removes one form of sanction or remedy (invalidation of evidence or of the procedure) that might otherwise be argued to flow from procedural non‑compliance. It thereby reduces the capacity for procedural non‑compliance to be used to exclude evidence on the ground of defective notice under the regulations themselves.

Standards and reviewability: A number of duties are framed as requiring the taking of “reasonable steps” (regulations 5(1)(b), 6(1), 7(1)). Reasonableness is an objective standard that can be subject to scrutiny in administrative review or judicial proceedings, depending on the availability of remedies under the Act or more general public law channels. The regulations do not prescribe how to measure reasonableness, leaving implementation and potential contestation to administrative practice and case‑by‑case adjudication.

Delegation and internal discipline: The regulations place responsibilities on officers and the Commissioner, and on the Minister to maintain a register, but do not specify internal disciplinary consequences for non‑performance. Enforcement therefore will be through internal administrative procedures, professional regulation for health practitioners who breach professional standards when performing forensic procedures, and the Act’s own enforcement architecture where relevant. For example, if an unauthorised person carries out prohibited intrusive procedures, the Act’s provisions on who may perform intrusive procedures and related sanctions will be engaged; the regulations only clarify who is to be regarded as qualified for certain procedures (regulation 8).

No express private right of action: The instrument does not create a private statutory right to sue for a breach of its provisions. Any remedy for an individual alleging harm from non‑compliance will need to be sought under other statutory provisions or common law causes of action, or by challenging administrative decision‑making where appropriate.

Inter‑jurisdictional enforcement: Regulation 11(3) contemplates registration of orders made under corresponding laws when the Minister has entered into an arrangement with the Minister responsible for the corresponding law, and upon request the Minister will register the order in the Register. This creates an administrative mechanism for recognising orders from other jurisdictions in South Australia. It does not itself create enforcement mechanisms for cross‑jurisdictional execution, but it facilitates proof and official record‑keeping.

In sum, enforcement in the regulations is administrative and evidentiary rather than penal. The most concrete constraint on remedies is reg 5(2), which excludes invalidation of a forensic procedure for failure to give the pre‑procedure notice specified in reg 5(1). Other duties framed by reasonableness remain open to administrative scrutiny and judicial interpretation, but the regulations do not set out specific sanctioning or penalty regimes.

The regulations are tightly cross‑referenced to the Criminal Law (Forensic Procedures) Act 2007 and to specified “corresponding laws” in other jurisdictions. The instrument’s operation is therefore intrinsically relational: it implements parts of the Act and coordinates with interstate and Commonwealth provisions.

Interaction with the Act: Each substantive regulation is expressed to be “for the purposes” of a stated section of the Act. For example, regulation 4 prescribes the list of corresponding laws for the Act’s definition of “corresponding law” in s 3(1). Regulations 5-7 give procedural detail under s 20B of the Act, setting out notice and notification protocols where blood is taken and tested for communicable diseases (regs 5-7 refer explicitly to section 20B). Regulation 8 addresses who is “qualified to carry out forensic procedures” for the purposes of sections 24(1)(b) and 55(5) of the Act. Regulation 9 prescribes a purpose connected to the administration of Part 2 Division 4 under s 50(1)(p). Regulation 10 prescribes the authority for release and disclosure for scientific purposes under s 50A(1). Regulation 11 concerns registration of orders for the purposes of section 56(2) of the Act. The regulations therefore do not operate independently; they fill procedural, definitional and administrative gaps left by the Act. Any change to the Act's substantive framework would change the context for these regulations.

Corresponding laws and cross‑jurisdictional mechanisms: Regulation 4 lists a set of specified laws that are “prescribed for the purposes of the definition of corresponding law in section 3(1) of the Act”. The list includes the Crimes (Forensic Procedures) Act 2000 (ACT and NSW), Part ID of the federal Crimes Act 1914, various Northern Territory provisions, Queensland’s Chapter 17 of the Police Powers and Responsibilities Act 2000, the Forensic Procedures Act 2000 (Tasmania), Victoria’s Crimes Act 1958 provisions, and the Criminal Investigation (Identifying People) Act 2002 (WA). By prescribing these instruments as corresponding laws, the regulations enable mechanisms such as registration of orders under regulation 11(3) and possibly mutual recognition of orders and samples. Regulation 11(3) provides that where the Minister has an arrangement with a Minister responsible for a corresponding law, the Minister will register an order made under the corresponding law at the request of that corresponding Minister. That creates an administrative recognition channel between jurisdictions, but it does not itself create enforcement powers to execute or enforce foreign orders; it provides a record and evidentiary basis for proceedings in South Australia.

Health law and medical confidentiality: The regulations permit results to be provided to a nominated medical practitioner and treat that provision as satisfying the notification duties (regs 5(1)(c); 6(2); 7(2)). This interacts with clinical confidentiality and privacy obligations under other health records and privacy legislation, although the regulations themselves do not override such laws. Regulation 9 prescribes a purpose connected to the administration of Part 2 Division 4 for the confidentiality carve‑out in s 50(1)(p) of the Act; that references the Act’s confidentiality regime and how certain administrative disclosures are permitted. Regulation 10 appoints the Director of Forensic Science SA as the prescribed authority for s 50A(1) releases for scientific purposes, aligning the forensic science agency with the Act’s disclosure permissions.

Administrative evidence law: The register maintained under regulation 11 is given a specific evidentiary status: an apparently genuine certified copy or extract will be accepted as proof of the matters specified absent proof to the contrary (reg 11(4)). That interacts with general evidence law and procedural rules in courts; it eases proof of the existence and terms of orders and may reduce transactional friction in intergovernmental cooperation. However, it does not displace judicial control over admissibility or weight given to such documents.

Professional regulation and training: Regulation 8 sets which practitioners are qualified to carry out forensic procedures, including the requirement that certain persons have completed a course approved by the Minister. That interacts with occupational regulation for nurses and forensic practitioners, and with professional standards set by health and training regulators. The Minister’s course‑approval power will interact with vocational education frameworks and credentialing practices.

Privacy and human‑rights frameworks: The regulations impose notice and notification duties and a nominated practitioner mechanism for test results. These administrative duties will intersect with privacy law (for example, health information privacy principles), and with any human‑rights or child‑welfare provisions insofar as minors are involved. The regulations do not expressly address those other statutory obligations; implementers must operate the notification and disclosure mechanics in line with other applicable law.

No conflict‑resolution provisions: The regulations provide no explicit rule for resolving conflicts between these regulations and other laws; normal statutory interpretation and conflict‑of‑laws principles apply. The regulations generally operate as subordinate law implementing the Act’s purposes and therefore must be read consistently with the Act and other relevant Commonwealth or State statutes.

Repeal of previous regulations: Schedule 1 repeals the Criminal Law (Forensic Procedures) Regulations 2007. That is an explicit replacement of the prior subordinate instrument; any existing practices that relied on the 2007 regulations should be reviewed to ensure continuity under the 2022 regulations.

The instrument includes minimal legislative history within the text. The regulations were made in 2022 and are cited as the Criminal Law (Forensic Procedures) Regulations 2022. The Legislative history notes that these are the principal regulations No. 69 of 2022, published in the Gazette on 25 August 2022 and commenced on 25 August 2022 (regulation 2; Legislative history: Gazette 25.8.2022 p2618; commencement 25.8.2022: r 2).

The regulations expressly repeal the Criminal Law (Forensic Procedures) Regulations 2007 by Schedule 1 (Schedule 1,Repeal of Criminal Law (Forensic Procedures) Regulations 2007, item 1). No other amendments or historical iterations are recorded in the text provided. There are no transitional provisions included in the instrument itself; the repeal is a straightforward repeal of the earlier regulations. The regulations therefore represent the replacement of the 2007 subordinate instrument with the 2022 instrument at the date of commencement.

The instrument does not include a history of prior amendments, schedules of past changes, or amendment dates beyond the principal regulations information given. There is no indication within the regulations text of any subsequent amending instruments. Practitioners should therefore rely on the official statutes register or South Australian legislation website for any later amendments or consolidation updates beyond 25 August 2022.

Where the regulations refer to the Act’s sections (for example, s 20B, s 24, s 50, s 50A, s 55, s 56), any amendment of those sections in the Act after 25 August 2022 could affect the operation or relevance of the regulations. The regulations do not contain a savings or transitional schedule that would preserve prior practice beyond the repeal. For full certainty on legislative history, the official government index and the legislation.sa.gov.au portal (not part of these regulations) is the reference suggested by the note at the end of the instrument.

Key recorded facts in the instrument’s own legislative history: the regulations are principal regulations (No. 69 of 2022), published in the Gazette and commenced on the day made (25 August 2022). The 2007 regulations are expressly repealed. No other historical material, amendment list, or explanatory memorandum is included in the text provided.

The regulations do not contain any internal record of litigation. They do not cite or reference judicial decisions, nor do they set out any statutory interpretation history. The instrument itself therefore records no litigation history.

Because the regulations are subordinate legislation made under the Act, any litigation arising from or concerning their operation (for example, disputes over whether “reasonable steps” were taken by the Commissioner to notify persons of communicable-disease test results, or challenges to whether a particular person was qualified to carry out a procedure under regulation 8) would be found in external case law databases and not in the regulations text. The regulations do include provisions (for example, regulation 11(4)) that affect evidentiary practice in proceedings by allowing an apparently genuine certified copy or extract of the register to be accepted as proof in the absence of contrary proof; that is an administrative evidentiary rule that will be engaged in litigation but the regulations do not report outcomes of any such proceedings.

The absence of litigation history in the instrument means two practical things for readers: first, there is no internal or published record here of how courts have interpreted the regulations’ reasonableness standards, the effect of reg 5(2)’s non‑invalidation clause, or the scope of qualification under reg 8; and second, any legal precedents affecting the regulations would need to be searched for in jurisprudence databases and public law reports rather than relied on from this instrument.

For practitioners preparing for potential litigation risk or judicial review, the relevant starting points will be the Act’s provisions referenced in the regulations (notably s 20B, s 24, s 50, s 50A, s 55 and s 56), the text of these regulations, and subsequent case law or administrative decisions interpreting how duties such as “reasonable steps” have been applied in practice. The regulations themselves do not identify any authority or reported decisions to consult.

The regulations introduce a number of specific textual features and operational choices that produce practical risks, implementation frictions and potential contestation points. These are concrete, text‑founded “gotchas” to watch for.

1. Failure to give pre‑procedure notice does not invalidate the procedure (regulation 5(2)). The authorising officer has an obligation to give written notice (reg 5(1)), but reg 5(2) removes invalidation as a consequence of non‑compliance. This means procedural non‑compliance cannot be used to automatically overturn the lawfulness of the sample or the testing under the regulations themselves. Litigants may seek remedies elsewhere, but the regulations make clear there is no automatic procedural exclusion remedy within the subordinate instrument.

2. “Reasonable steps” standard is unspecified and fact‑dependent (regulations 5(1)(b), 6(1), 7(1)). The Commissioner’s notification duties and the authorising officer’s duty to notify parents/guardians of minors use the reasonableness standard. That leaves significant discretion about what steps are required to discharge the duty. Without departmental or operational guidance, implementers will be relying on internal protocols or later case law to define that standard. Expect disputes where notification failed and parties contest whether “reasonable steps” were taken.

3. Nominated medical practitioner mechanism stands in for direct notification (regs 5(1)(c), 6(2), 7(2)). The Commissioner is taken to have complied by providing results to a nominated medical practitioner. This is an efficiency mechanism but can produce issues if the nominated practitioner declines to accept or forward results, or if the nomination is unclear. The regulations do not prescribe verification, confirmation, or timeframes for transfer to the nominated clinician.

4. Qualification carve‑outs and special constraints (regulation 8). Nurses are qualified for all procedures except dental impressions (reg 8(1)(a)). Police or Commissioner‑authorised persons may perform certain non‑intrusive procedures (reg 8(1)(b)), and Minister‑approved course graduates can do specified sampling (reg 8(1)(c)). The instrument does not specify the accreditation process for the Minister’s course approvals, nor ongoing competence requirements. There is a concrete operational pitfall: persons may act believing they are qualified without having the required Ministerial approval or Commissioner authorisation. Also, dental impressions are expressly excluded for qualified nurses, which requires alternative arrangements.

5. Finger‑prick DNA sampling as a residual option (regulation 8(2)). The regulation specifies that a finger‑prick for DNA profile should only be used if a buccal swab is not appropriate in the circumstances. That introduces an evidentiary and operational judgement , what counts as “not appropriate”? Documenting reasons for choosing finger‑prick over buccal swab will be important for later scrutiny.

6. Limited scope of “affected person” definition by reference (regulation 7(3)). The regulations define “affected person” in relation to prescribed employment in s 20B(1)(b) of the Act. Practitioners must consult the Act’s text to identify whether a particular worker is an affected person; the regulation does not itself list occupations. This dependency may cause confusion in operation unless agencies map roles explicitly.

7. The Minister’s register may be electronic and entries have presumptive probative value (regulation 11(2)-(4)). While this eases administrative proof, it can also lead to over‑reliance on the register where entries are incomplete or inaccurate. The presumption is rebuttable (“in the absence of proof to the contrary”), so defendants or affected parties may need to pursue evidence challenging register entries, which can be resource‑intensive.

8. No express penalties or remedies in the regulations. If a person is not notified of results despite duties in regs 6-7, the regulations do not set out statutory sanctions; remedies would need to be sought under other law, administrative complaint mechanisms or common law causes of action. This can make redress uncertain and protracted.

9. Inter‑jurisdictional registration requires an arrangement and a request (regulation 11(3)). Registration of corresponding‑law orders is not automatic; it depends on an arrangement between Ministers and a request by the corresponding Minister. That may slow cross‑jurisdictional recognition and requires active cooperation.

10. Repeal of 2007 regulations without transitional detail (Schedule 1). The 2007 regulations are repealed but no transitional provisions are added in the 2022 instrument. Implementers should ensure all practices that relied on the previous regs are updated, and confirm whether any necessary transitional provisions exist elsewhere.

For practitioners and administrators, these are operationally material features that should inform policy, form design, training, record‑keeping, and risk assessments.

This section gives concrete, source‑grounded steps agencies and practitioners should take to comply with the regulations, focussing on documentary practice, delegation, training, recordkeeping and intergovernmental arrangements.

1. Written notice templates and delivery proof for blood procedures (regulation 5). Authorising officers must give written notice that blood will be taken and will be tested for communicable diseases before carrying out the procedure (reg 5(1)(a)). Prepare a standard written notice template that includes the two required statements and a section inviting the person (or parent/guardian for under‑16s) to nominate a medical practitioner to receive test results (reg 5(1)(c)). Maintain signed acknowledgements or delivery records for each notice. For minors, document the “reasonable steps” taken to give written notice to parent/guardian (reg 5(1)(b)) , for example, recorded phone calls, emails, certified post, and in‑person deliveries , to create an audit trail consistent with the reasonableness standard.

2. Nomination and confirmation of medical practitioner (regs 5(1)(c), 6(2), 7(2)). Include on the notice form a clear field for the nominated practitioner’s name, practice details and preferred secure communication method. Create a process to confirm receipt with the nominated practitioner when results are provided and keep contemporaneous records showing the time, method and content of transmission. Since provision to the nominated practitioner is taken to be compliance with notification duties (regs 6(2), 7(2)), document chain‑of‑custody and confirmation messages to avoid disputes about whether notification was made.

3. Reasonable‑steps protocols for notification (regs 6 and 7). The Commissioner must take reasonable steps to notify the person and affected persons of communicable disease test results (reg 6(1); reg 7(1)). Develop written internal procedures detailing what will be considered “reasonable steps” in different operational contexts (e.g. when the subject refuses contact, is transient, or uncooperative). Protocols should specify attempt frequencies, methods (phone, SMS with secure link, registered post, in‑person), escalation pathways, and record retention. For affected persons, establish a roster or database of roles identified under s 20B(1)(b) of the Act and maintain contact information for those categories to expedite notification.

4. Training and accreditation for persons performing procedures (regulation 8). Map each forensic procedure to the qualified performer categories in regulation 8. Ensure registered nurses and police officers understand their authorised scope, and set up verification checks for Commissioner authorisations. For the category of persons who must complete a Minister‑approved course (reg 8(1)(c)), confirm course approval status with the Minister’s office before relying on a certificate. Maintain certificates and training records onsite. For DNA sampling, incorporate a decision checklist justifying why a buccal swab is inappropriate before using a finger‑prick method (reg 8(2)), and retain that checklist in the file.

5. Documentation and chain‑of‑custody for samples. For all forensic procedures, maintain standard chain‑of‑custody forms that identify the performer, their qualification status, date/time, and the exact procedure used. Include reference to the authorising instrument (s 20B or other relevant Act section). For dental impressions, do not attribute authority to registered nurses per reg 8(1)(a).

6. Minister’s register procedures (regulation 11). The Minister must maintain a register that may be electronic and must contain specified particulars (date/place, court/authority, person’s name, terms) (reg 11(1)-(2)). If you are in the Minister’s administrative team, implement an electronic register platform that records these fields and timestamps entries. Institute procedures for registering orders from corresponding‑law Ministers where there is an arrangement (reg 11(3)) and ensure certified extracts can be produced promptly for litigation purposes. Implement internal verification steps to minimise the risk that the register contains incorrect entries, because the regulations give certified copies or extracts presumptive probative value in proceedings (reg 11(4)).

7. Confidentiality and scientific disclosure (regs 9-10). If you are handling requests for disclosure under s 50 and s 50A, note that regulation 9 prescribes a purpose connected to administration of Part 2 Division 4 for s 50(1)(p), and regulation 10 prescribes the Director of Forensic Science SA as the prescribed authority for s 50A(1). Ensure that any release for scientific purposes goes through the Director of Forensic Science SA or their acting incumbent, and keep records of decisions authorising disclosure tied to the statutory purposes.

8. Minor‑specific procedures. For persons under 16, take additional reasonable steps to notify parents/guardians before the procedure (reg 5(1)(b)) and include parents/guardians in notification efforts for results (regs 6(1), 7(1)). Keep careful records of attempts and outcomes.

9. Inter‑jurisdictional cooperation. Where you expect to register orders made under corresponding laws, confirm whether an arrangement exists between the Ministers as contemplated by regulation 11(3). If it does, create a standard request form for corresponding Ministers seeking registration, and a vetting checklist to ensure that the order’s particulars fit the register fields.

10. Audit and quality assurance. Given the reasonableness standards and the absence of invalidation or penalties, strong internal quality assurance will mitigate disputes. Conduct regular audits of notice forms, notification records, training certifications, and register entries. Where internal protocols are adjusted, document the rationale and the date of the change.

11. Record retention and disclosure readiness. Because many compliance elements depend on documented “reasonable steps” and on nomination receipts, retain records for an appropriate period consistent with evidence preservation and forensic practice, and be prepared to produce certified extracts from the register in litigation.

12. Liaison with health privacy and professional regulators. Coordination with privacy officers and professional regulatory bodies will be necessary when communicating medical results and ensuring practitioners performing procedures meet professional standards. Align notification and disclosure processes with health privacy obligations, while recognising the specific mechanisms in the regulations that allow provision to nominated medical practitioners and the Director of Forensic Science SA’s authority for scientific release.

These steps are derived strictly from the obligations and mechanisms the regulations set out (regs 5-11) and are intended to translate the statutory phrasing into implementable administrative practice.