The Regulation organises a small set of legal mechanisms around the seizure, custody, disposal and return of spray paint cans, retail display rules, penalty notice mechanics and transition from the repealed 2014 Regulation. The main statutory concepts are:

• Seized spray paint can: defined contextually as a can seized under the Act’s seizure power (Part 2 heading and s 4). The Regulation assumes the underlying power to seize exists in the Act and supplies operational detail for that seizure.
• Reasons for seizure: police are required, when seizing under s 9 of the Act, to supply specified reasons to the person from whom the can is seized (s 4). The content required is twofold: (a) that the officer suspects the person is under 18 years of age, and (b) that the officer is satisfied the person has the can for an unlawful purpose (s 4(2)(a)-(b)).
• Immediate disposal triggers: a seized can may be destroyed or otherwise disposed of immediately if part of its contents have been used, or if the can is of negligible value (s 5). These are threshold factual conditions that permit disposal without the custody pathway.
• Custody and receipts: where immediate disposal is not triggered, the officer must take the can to a specified police station and inform the person it will be kept there for at least seven days and that a claim for return may be made at that station. A receipt detailing the can must be issued either at seizure or upon delivery to the station (s 6(1)-(2)).
• Retention periods and disposal following non-claim: a can held at a station must be kept for at least seven days and may be disposed of if not claimed within seven days (s 7). If a claim is rejected, a further seven-day retention is required to allow an application to court under s 9 of the Regulation, and disposal thereafter is permitted unless an application has been made (s 8(2)).
• Claim and proof conditions: return is available if the claimant establishes they were at least 18 at the time of seizure, or that they had the can for a non-unlawful purpose which the police officer had been told about at the time of seizure. If a claim is rejected and an application is lodged under s 9, the can must be retained until the application is determined (s 8).
• Court remedy standard: the court may order return if satisfied the person had the can for a purpose that was not unlawful, being a purpose of which the officer was informed at the time (s 9).
• Retail display rule clarification: for the Act’s display prohibition (Act s 8(2)(c)), the Regulation prescribes a 2.1 metre-or-higher shelf as constituting proper securing; it also excludes cans containing paint that, once applied, is transparent and colourless from the Act’s s 8 operation (s 10).
• Penalty notice specification and authorised issuers: the Regulation prescribes $550 as the penalty notice amount for the sale/display offences and names two classes of persons able to issue such notices,Fair Trading investigators and specified local council authorised employees (s 11).

These concepts are procedural and definitional. The Regulation does not purport to define the Act’s substantive criminal elements such as what constitutes an “unlawful purpose”, nor does it amend sentencing or broader enforcement powers in the Act. Instead it links discrete factual conditions (e.g. partially used can) and administrative steps (e.g. an officer’s required communication and issuance of receipts) to outcomes (disposal, retention, claim rights, court pathway).

Note that the Regulation repeatedly cites the Act and other statutes (Fair Trading Act 1987, Local Government Act 1993) to anchor authorised classes and the delegation of power; those cross-references indicate the Regulation’s role as an implementation instrument rather than a freestanding code.

The Regulation’s practical footprint touches three principal groups and a handful of institutional actors, with identifiable cost and decision-bearing implications.

• Persons from whom spray paint cans are seized: the Regulation establishes mandatory procedural protections and evidential thresholds when police seize spray paint cans. A person subject to seizure must be told two specific reasons (s 4): that the officer suspects the person is under 18, and that the officer is satisfied the can is possessed for an unlawful purpose. If the can is not disposed of immediately the person must be informed where the can will be taken, that it will be kept for at least seven days, and that they can claim return at that station (s 6(1)). Those requirements affect the information available to the person and the administrative route for recovery. The person bears the burden at claim time to establish either that they were at least 18 at the time of seizure or that the can was for a lawful purpose which was communicated to the officer at seizure (s 8(1)(a)-(b)). Where a claim is rejected, the person has an opportunity to apply to a court under s 9, but that application must be made within seven days of rejection to avoid disposal (s 8(2)(a)-(b)).

• Police officers and police stations: police implement the seizure power and perform a sequence of actions mandated by the Regulation. On seizure they must give the specified reasons (s 4); they must decide whether immediate disposal grounds exist (s 5); if not, they must transport the can to a named police station, issue a receipt either at point of seizure or upon receipt at the station (s 6(2)), and maintain custody for specified minimum periods (ss 7-8). Police also make the administrative decision whether to accept or reject claims for return; a rejected claim triggers an additional retention obligation of at least seven days to allow for court applications (s 8(2)). Police discretion is implicated at multiple junctures: forming the suspicion about age, being “satisfied” about unlawful purpose, deciding immediate disposal under s 5, and deciding whether a claim meets the threshold for return.

• Retailers and businesses selling spray paint: the Regulation prescribes what counts as being “properly secured” for retail display purposes (s 10(1)). Retailers who sell spray paint that is not transparent and colourless must either ensure cans are displayed on shelves 2.1 metres or higher, or otherwise bring their display practice within the Act’s requirements. The Regulation carves out an exception for cans that, when applied, are transparent and colourless (s 10(2)). Retail staff and managers will therefore need to identify which product lines fall within the exemption and which do not, and to implement physical store changes (shelving height or alternative security measures) consistent with the prescribed standard.

• Persons issuing penalty notices and local regulators: the Regulation prescribes $550 as the penalty notice amount for sale/display offences under s 16(3) of the Act (s 11(1)). It also prescribes classes of persons who may issue such notices: investigators as defined by the Fair Trading Act 1987, and authorised local council employees under s 679 of the Local Government Act 1993 (s 11(2)). Those classes are therefore empowered by the regulation to undertake administrative enforcement through penalty notices, subject to the scope of their underlying authorisations in the referenced Acts.

• Courts: the local courts are given a determinate remedial function under s 9 of the Regulation,to order the return of a seized can where satisfied the person had it for a lawful purpose that was communicated to the officer at the time of seizure. The Regulation therefore channels disputes over ownership and lawful purpose into a short timeframe for judicial resolution.

Who pays: the immediate monetary cost the Regulation prescribes is the $550 penalty notice amount payable by the recipient of a penalty notice issued under the Act’s sale/display provision (s 11(1)). Other costs fall on retailers (shelving, internal controls, staff training to identify exempt paint types), on police (storage, record-keeping, administrative time to issue receipts and manage claims, disposal costs), and on individuals who choose to pursue a court application (costs and time associated with a court proceeding). The Regulation itself does not allocate or provide reimbursement for those costs.

In short, the Regulation concentrates administrative and evidential obligations on police and retailers, provides a defined but narrow remedial avenue for individuals whose property is seized, and extends administrative enforcement capacity to certain investigators and council officers through the penalty notice mechanism.

The Regulation creates a small set of statutory duties that police, retailers, authorised enforcement officers and persons from whom cans are seized must observe, and it simultaneously confers narrow rights on claimants. These duties and rights are concrete and time-bound.

Police duties (Part 2, ss 4-7):

• Duty to give reasons on seizure: under s 4(1)-(2), when seizing a spray paint can under the Act, a police officer must give reasons to the person. The officer must tell the person both that the officer suspects the person is under 18 and that the officer is satisfied the person has the can for an unlawful purpose. This is a mandatory, content-specific information duty that must be performed contemporaneously with seizure.
• Immediate disposal duty/permission: s 5 authorises immediate disposal if part of the can’s contents have been used or the can is of negligible value. This creates a factual trigger that, when satisfied, permits immediate destructive or other disposal action by police without invoking the custody pathway.
• Custody and notice duties: where immediate disposal does not occur, police must take the can to a specified police station and inform the person that the can will be kept at that station for at least seven days and that a claim for return may be made at the station (s 6(1)). Police must issue a receipt specifying details of the can either at the time of seizure or when the can is delivered to the station (s 6(2)). Police must keep the can at the station for at least seven days (s 7(1)) and may dispose of it if unclaimed after seven days (s 7(2)).

Police discretionary points:

• Forming suspicion about age and being “satisfied” about unlawful purpose are subjective determinations that the Regulation requires police to state as reasons but does not otherwise define. The obligation to tell the person these reasons creates transparency and an evidentiary record, but the Regulation does not prescribe objective standards for those determinations.

Rights and burdens of persons from whom cans are seized:

• Right to information on seizure: the on-the-spot right to be told the prescribed reasons and custody details (s 4, s 6(1)).
• Right to a receipt: the person must be given a receipt that specifies details of the seized can either at seizure or when the can arrives at the station (s 6(2)). The receipt is an evidentiary artefact that supports later claims.
• Right to make a claim for return: a person may claim a seized can under s 8(1) and if successful the can must be returned. The claimant must establish proof of either being at least 18 at seizure or that the can was possessed for a lawful purpose which the officer was informed of at the time of seizure (s 8(1)(a)-(b)). The condition that the lawful purpose must have been communicated to the officer narrows the scope of the claim to what was actually told to police at seizure; the Regulation therefore places a temporal and communicative constraint on the claimant’s right.
• Right to seek a court order: if a claim is rejected, the person has a right to apply to a court under s 9; following a rejected claim, the Regulation mandates an additional seven-day retention to allow for that application (s 8(2)(a)). If an application is made prior to disposal, the can must be kept until the application is determined (s 8(3)).

Duties and rights for retailers:

• Duty to secure display: for the Act’s purposes, a can is “properly secured” if displayed on a shelf 2.1 metres or more above floor level (s 10(1)). Retailers therefore have a practical duty to ensure display methods satisfy the Regulation’s prescriptive threshold or else face enforcement under the Act’s sale/display provisions.
• Exemption right: cans that contain paint which, when applied, is both transparent and colourless are excluded from the Act’s display rule (s 10(2)), meaning retailers need not apply the shelf-height standard to such cans.

Penalty notice duties and rights:

• Monetary obligation: the amount prescribed for penalty notices under the Act’s sale/display provision is $550 (s 11(1)). A recipient of a valid penalty notice would be liable to pay that amount as an administrative penalty.
• Enforcement actors: the Regulation prescribes who may issue such penalty notices,investigators under the Fair Trading Act and authorised local council employees under the Local Government Act s679 (s 11(2)). Other persons not within those classes are not prescribed by this instrument to issue penalty notices for these offences.

Court duty:

• Judicial assessment: under s 9, the court is empowered to determine return applications and must be satisfied that the can was possessed for a purpose that was not unlawful and that the officer had been informed of that purpose at seizure. The court’s satisfaction is the legal standard for return.

Record-keeping and retention duties are implicit and explicit (receipts, retention for prescribed periods). The duties create time-critical rights (the seven-day windows) and put practical burdens on police and claimants to act swiftly. The Regulation prescribes precise procedural steps,who must tell what, what documents must be provided, how long the can must be retained,rather than open-ended administrative discretion.

The Regulation itself prescribes one monetary figure and identifies the classes of officers authorised to issue penalty notices for sale/display offences; enforcement in other respects is managed through the Act and the police powers the Act authorises.

Penalty notices (s 11):

• The Regulation prescribes $550 as the penalty notice amount for offences relating to sale or display of spray paint cans for the purposes of s 16(3) of the Act (s 11(1)). That is an administrative monetary penalty figure set by the Regulation, and it is the specific sum that will be applied when a penalty notice is issued under the Act.
• The Regulation enumerates two classes of persons authorised to issue penalty notices under the Act’s scheme: (a) investigators within the meaning of the Fair Trading Act 1987, and (b) employees of local councils who are authorised persons for the purposes of s 679 of the Local Government Act 1993 (s 11(2)(a)-(b)). Those references channel enforcement capacity to specific existing categories of regulatory officers; they do not create new authorised classes.

Enforcement of seizure and disposal provisions (Parts 2-3):

• Seizure enforcement is primarily a police function. The Regulation imposes procedural obligations on police,such as the mandatory giving of reasons under s 4 and issuance of receipts under s 6(2),but it does not specify independent sanctions for failure to give reasons or issue receipts. The Act likely contains enforcement or legal consequences for improper exercise of seizure powers, but those broader consequences are outside the Regulation’s text. Within the Regulation, the immediate disposal ground (s 5) is a permitted action rather than a sanction.
• The Regulation prescribes retention periods and disposal rules (ss 6-8). Disposal is permitted after set retention periods, and the Regulation sets the timeframe for court applications to avoid disposal (a claim rejected must be allowed another seven days for an application under s 9, s 8(2)(a)-(b)). The effect is to create a rapid administrative timeline for claimants: if a claimant does not apply within the prescribed window, police may lawfully dispose of the can.

Procedural enforcement mechanisms:

• Receipts (s 6(2)) and the requirement to inform the person where and how long the can will be held (s 6(1)) are procedural compliance measures that give the person notice and an evidentiary instrument to pursue return. The Regulation ties the availability of return to what the person told the officer at the time of seizure (ss 8-9). This makes contemporaneous communications and record-keeping practically relevant for enforcement outcomes.
• Court enforcement is available through s 9: where a person applies to a court, the court has the authority to order the return of a seized can if it is satisfied the person had the can for a lawful purpose that was communicated to the officer at seizure. The Regulation therefore provides a judicial check on police disposals, but when a person fails to act within the short statutory windows, disposal proceeds administratively.

Limits and gaps relevant to enforcement:

• The Regulation does not set out penalties for police non-compliance with its procedural duties, nor does it define “negligible value” or "part of the contents ... have been used" beyond their plain meaning; those factual terms become operational at the enforcement front line and will be resolved by police practice or courts if contested.
• The Regulation specifies who can issue penalty notices, but does not set out internal administrative processes for issuing, disputing or withdrawing such notices; those processes will be governed by the Act and the issuing authorities’ general penalty notice frameworks.

In sum, enforcement under the Regulation proceeds via a mix of administrative steps handled by police and authorised enforcement officers (investigators and council officers) and a narrow court remedy for contested returns. The $550 penalty figure is the primary monetary consequence articulated in the Regulation itself.

The Regulation is explicitly framed as an implementation instrument for the Graffiti Control Act 2008 and cross-references other NSW statutes to allocate enforcement functions and define authorised officers. Its interactions are limited to definitional, procedural and enforcement delineations.

Interaction with the Graffiti Control Act 2008:

• The Regulation repeatedly references and operates “for the purposes of the Act” (see ss 4 heading referring to the Act s 9, s 10 referencing Act s 8(2)(c), and s 11 referencing Act s 16(3)). It does not amend the Act’s substantive provisions but clarifies how particular provisions of the Act are to be applied in practice. For example, the retail display clarification in s 10(1) prescribes what is “properly secured” for the purposes of s 8(2)(c) of the Act. Similarly, s 11 prescribes the amount for penalty notices under the Act.
• The Regulation confines certain rights (for return of seized cans) by incorporating evidentiary constraints derived from what the person told the officer at the time of seizure (ss 8-9). This modifies the procedural interface between the Act’s seizure power and the right to seek return by setting the terms on which proof of lawful purpose may be established.

Interaction with the Fair Trading Act 1987:

• Section 11(2)(a) prescribes “investigators, within the meaning of the Fair Trading Act 1987” as a class of persons who may issue penalty notices under the Act. The Regulation therefore integrates Fair Trading investigators into the enforcement architecture for sale/display offences, leveraging statutory authorisations that already exist under the Fair Trading Act to empower administrative enforcement actions under the Graffiti Control Act.

Interaction with the Local Government Act 1993:

• Section 11(2)(b) prescribes employees of a local council who are authorised persons for the purposes of s 679 of the Local Government Act 1993 as able to issue penalty notices under the Act. This links local government enforcement capacity to the Graffiti Control Act’s penalty notice regime, enabling municipal enforcement officers who hold authorisations under the Local Government Act to issue notices for sale/display offences.

Interpretation Act and other cross-references:

• The definition section (s 3) notes that “the Act” means the Graffiti Control Act 2008 and adds a note that the Act and the Interpretation Act 1987 contain definitions and other provisions that affect interpretation and application of the Regulation. This places the Regulation within the wider statutory interpretation framework that applies to NSW subordinate instruments.

Repeal and savings:

• Section 12 expressly repeals the Graffiti Control Regulation 2014 and saves existing acts, matters and things that had effect under the 2014 Regulation by preserving their effect under the new Regulation. That creates continuity and avoids gaps in enforcement that a bare repeal might otherwise produce.

Practical interplay consequences:

• By prescribing certain enforcement actors from other Acts (Fair Trading, Local Government), the Regulation channels enforcement capacity across agencies. The Regulation thus requires coordination at the administrative level among police, state Fair Trading investigators and local councils, each exercising functions under their enabling statutes but acting also under the delegated framework of the Graffiti Control Act as given practical teeth by this Regulation.
• The Regulation’s prescriptive shelf height and exemption for transparent, colourless paint interact with retailers’ obligations under the Act; their compliance will be tested under the Act’s enforcement mechanisms, including the penalty notice regime that the Regulation defines in monetary and issuer terms.

The Regulation therefore operates as a bridge between the Act and existing enforcement frameworks under other NSW statutes, providing procedural detail and allocating roles without altering the substantive criminal law found in the Act.

The Regulation is recent and short; its amendment history as contained in the instrument is limited and straightforward.

• Commencement and replacement: Section 2 states the Regulation commences on the day it is published on the NSW legislation website. The commencement note accompanying s 2 explicitly records that this Regulation repeals and replaces the Graffiti Control Regulation 2014, which would otherwise have been repealed by operation of the Subordinate Legislation Act 1989, s 10(2), on 1 September 2021. This indicates the Regulation was designed to replace the 2014 instrument and to ensure continuity of regulatory coverage (s 2 and accompanying Note).
• Repeal and savings: Section 12(1) expressly repeals the Graffiti Control Regulation 2014. Section 12(2) contains a savings provision: any act, matter or thing that, immediately before repeal, had effect under the 2014 Regulation continues to have effect under this Regulation. That savings clause ensures transitional continuity for ongoing matters arising under the predecessor Regulation.
• No other amendments recorded: the text provided contains no further amendment history, variations, or notes of prior or subsequent amendments. The Regulation does not include transitional provisions beyond the s 12 savings clause, nor does it reference staged commencements or phased implementation for particular parts.

What this means operationally:

• The Regulation replaced the 2014 instrument in a single step and preserved pre-existing rights, obligations and administrative acts that arose under the earlier Regulation. The explicit savings clause removes a risk of legal discontinuity where items seized, processes or enforcement actions initiated under the 2014 instrument might otherwise have been left in limbo.
• Because the Regulation does not list prior amending instruments or a chain of amendment entries, readers should assume (based solely on the Regulation’s own text) that this instrument is the operative successor to the 2014 Regulation and that no later amendments are recorded within the source text supplied here.

If practitioners need a full legislative history beyond what this Regulation records they must consult the NSW legislation website or the statutory revision records. Within the Regulation itself the amendment history is confined to repeal of the 2014 Regulation and an explicit savings provision to preserve continuity.

The Regulation’s text does not record any litigation history. It contains no references to judicial decisions, reported cases or prior court consideration of provisions in this instrument. There are no named cases or judicial interpretations included in the source material supplied.

What can be said from the instrument alone:

• The Regulation creates procedural obligations and factual thresholds (for example, police having to tell a person they suspect they are under 18 and are satisfied the can is for an unlawful purpose, s 4) that may be subject to future legal challenge or judicial interpretation, particularly if disputes arise over whether police complied with the notice or receipt obligations, the meaning of “negligible value” or the sufficiency of a communicated lawful purpose for return. However, the instrument itself contains no reported litigation.
• The court remedy under s 9 and the tight timelines (seven days for claims and another seven days following a rejected claim under s 8(2)) could generate litigation about what constitutes timely application and about the sufficiency of the evidence required for the court to be “satisfied” that the purpose was not unlawful, but again, no decisions are cited in the Regulation itself.

Therefore practitioners seeking precedential guidance must look beyond the Regulation’s text,this instrument alone supplies no case law or adjudicative history. The Regulation’s silence about litigation history is itself a datum: it does not yet record court engagement or prior judicial interpretation within the instrument.

The Regulation is compact but contains several specific, potentially overlooked, features and timing traps that practitioners and affected persons should note.

• Mandatory content of reasons on seizure narrows later arguments: s 4 requires the officer to tell the person both that the officer suspects they are under 18 and that the officer is satisfied they have the can for an unlawful purpose. The Regulation conditions a successful return claim on what the person told the officer at seizure (ss 8-9). If a person did not communicate a lawful purpose at the time of seizure, the Regulation limits the available proof to what was told at that moment. In practice that means failure to communicate a lawful purpose contemporaneously may forfeit a later claim unless the court accepts other evidence. The Regulation ties the right to return to that contemporaneous communication; it is not sufficient under the Regulation alone to assert a lawful purpose after the fact.

• Short retention windows and timing risk: the Regulation requires a minimum seven-day retention at the police station (s 7(1)). If a claim is rejected, the can must be kept for at least another seven days to allow a court application (s 8(2)(a)). Practically, a claimant has a narrow window to act,if they do not apply to the court within that additional seven days, the Regulation permits disposal (s 8(2)(b)). These compressed deadlines create procedural risk for claimants and may require urgent action. There is no express tolling or extension mechanism in the Regulation.

• “Immediate disposal” factual uncertainty: s 5 permits immediate disposal if part of the can’s contents have been used, or the can is of negligible value. The Regulation does not define “part of the contents” or “negligible value”. Police exercise factual judgment here, and the lack of statutory definitions could generate disputes about whether disposal was lawful if challenged. Practitioners should note that police are permitted to dispose immediately in these circumstances; a failure to secure the can by the person prior to seizure may limit later remedial options.

• Age suspicion mandatory notice may create evidential friction: s 4 requires police to tell the person they suspect the person is less than 18 years old. That public statement may affect subsequent interactions (for example, charging or diversion decisions under the Act) but the Regulation does not specify any proof threshold for age suspicion, nor does it require any supporting documentation. The obligation is to communicate the officer’s suspicion, not to prove age.

• Retailers: prescribed shelf height is a bright-line but narrow standard: s 10(1) prescribes 2.1 metres or more above floor level as constituting “properly secured” display under Act s 8(2)(c). Retailers may assume putting cans at 2.1m shelves is a compliance panacea; however, the Regulation says nothing about alternative security methods (locked cabinets, staff supervision) and does not state whether alternative measures will be accepted as “properly secured”. The Regulation also excludes cans with paint that is both transparent and colourless (s 10(2)). Retailers must be able to categorise products accurately to apply the exemption.

• Limited classes authorised to issue penalty notices: s 11(2) prescribes specific classes (Fair Trading investigators and authorised local council employees) as persons who may issue penalty notices. The Regulation does not list police as authorised issuers within this provision; police enforcement for sale/display offences may therefore proceed via other enforcement paths of the Act rather than penalty notices, unless they fall within the prescribed classes in separate legislation. Practitioners should verify whether other issuing powers exist under the Act itself; the Regulation only prescribes these two classes for the purposes of s 16.

• Repeal and savings preserve prior acts but do not elaborate transitional detail: s 12(2) maintains continuity with the 2014 Regulation by saving “any act, matter or thing” that had effect immediately prior to repeal. That preserves past actions but does not provide guidance for matters that may straddle the repeal, for example if a claim timeline began under the 2014 Regulation and continued after repeal. The savings clause preserves effect but does not expressly address process alignment.

• No internal sanction for non-issuance of receipts: s 6(2) requires that a receipt specifying details be issued either at seizure or upon delivery to the station. The Regulation does not specify remedies for failure to issue a receipt, although absence of a receipt could be significant evidence in a court challenge under s 9. Practitioners should therefore secure documentary proof at the time of seizure.

These “gotchas” reflect tight procedural windows, evidentiary dependencies on contemporaneous communications, and some undefined factual thresholds in the Regulation. Parties affected should be mindful of the time-critical nature of claims and the importance of contemporaneous documentation.

This section sets out practical, source-grounded steps to satisfy the Regulation’s duties and to protect rights. Each recommendation is tied to the specific Regulation provision(s) to which it responds.

For police officers (s 4-9):

• On seizure, provide the mandatory reasons exactly as required by s 4(2): tell the person both that you suspect they are under 18 years of age and that you are satisfied they have the spray paint can for an unlawful purpose. Record those statements contemporaneously in the officer’s occurrence report and in any seized property form. The Regulation makes this a mandatory communication; contemporaneous recording will support subsequent administrative and judicial scrutiny.
• If immediate disposal is contemplated, check the two factual triggers in s 5: has part of the contents been used, or is the can of negligible value? Document the factual basis for any immediate disposal decision. Take and retain photographs, log the can’s condition and the estimated value before disposal to mitigate later disputes.
• If immediate disposal is not appropriate, inform the person where the can will be taken, that it will be kept at that specified police station for at least seven days, and that they may make a claim for return at that station (s 6(1)). Provide verbal notice and ensure the notice is recorded.
• Issue a receipt specifying the seized can either at the time of seizure or upon arrival at the specified station (s 6(2)). The receipt should describe the item sufficiently (brand, colour, size, distinguishing marks), provide the date and time of seizure, the seizing officer’s name and station, and the retention period commencement.
• Maintain custody of the seized can for at least seven days (s 7(1)). If a claim is made and rejected, retain the can for at least another seven days to allow court application under s 9 (s 8(2)(a)). If an application under s 9 is made before disposal, keep the can until the application is determined (s 8(3)). Record claim communications and decisions precisely, including the basis for accepting or rejecting a claim.

For persons from whom a can is seized (ss 4, 6-9):

• On seizure, promptly tell the officer if you had a lawful purpose for the can and be sure to communicate that purpose at the time of seizure; the Regulation conditions a return on the purpose being one “of which the police officer who seized the spray paint can was informed at the time of its seizure” (s 8(1)(b), s 9). If you are over 18, state that fact immediately and ensure it is recorded (s 8(1)(a)).
• Insist on and retain the receipt specified by s 6(2). The receipt is crucial evidence for any claim or court application.
• If your claim is rejected, note the date of rejection and take prompt steps to apply to a court under s 9 if you wish to pursue return. The Regulation allows only an additional seven days after rejection for an application to court before disposal is permitted (s 8(2)). Seek legal advice rapidly to prepare any required court material.

For retailers and businesses (s 10):

• Review product lines and distinguish cans that, when applied, are both transparent and colourless from those that are not (s 10(2)). For cans not falling within the exemption, ensure display complies with the Regulation’s prescriptive standard: place spray paint cans on shelves 2.1 metres or more above floor level if they are to be considered “properly secured” under Act s 8(2)(c) per s 10(1).
• Implement internal controls (shelving configuration, staff training, clear signage) and update your compliance checklist to include the 2.1 metre standard. If your business cannot comply by shelving, consider off-floor display options or direct-sale measures consistent with the Act and with local enforcement practices.
• Retain product data sheets and supplier documentation confirming paint properties, so employees can quickly identify exempt products (transparent and colourless when applied) and apply the exemption correctly.

For authorised enforcement officers (s 11):

• If you are an investigator under the Fair Trading Act 1987 or an authorised local council employee under s 679 of the Local Government Act 1993, confirm your authorisation status in writing before issuing penalty notices under the Act (s 11(2)). Ensure your agency’s internal procedures for issuing penalty notices align with the $550 amount prescribed by the Regulation (s 11(1)) and with any general penalty notice frameworks your agency follows.
• Keep records of reasons for issuing penalty notices and follow the issuing process required by your parent statute to reduce risk of challenge.

For legal advisers and court practitioners (s 9):

• When preparing a s 9 application for return, focus on establishing the two key elements the Regulation requires the court to be satisfied of: (a) the purpose for which the person had the can was not unlawful, and (b) that purpose was communicated to the police officer at the time of seizure (s 9). Collate contemporaneous evidence (receipts, witness statements, photographs, purchase receipts) to demonstrate the claimant’s statements to police at seizure.
• Be mindful of the tight timeframes for application outlined in s 8 and ensure any filing deadlines are met to avoid administrative disposal.

Administrative record-keeping (ss 6-8):

• Across all actors, maintain clear written or electronic records of seizure, receipt issuance, custody periods, claim lodgement and disposal decisions. The Regulation’s procedures are time-sensitive and document-dependent; accurate record-keeping preserves rights and supports enforcement integrity.

In sum, compliance requires attention to four operational themes: immediate and precise communication at the time of seizure (s 4), issuance and retention of receipts (s 6(2)), observance of the seven-day retention windows and prompt action upon claim rejection (ss 7-8), and adherence to the prescribed retail display standard (s 10). The Regulation’s requirements are operationally specific and impose short deadlines; parties should embed these steps into practice to reduce legal and evidential risk.