sec.330Deciding application

### sec.330 Deciding application A Supreme Court judge or a magistrate may issue a surveillance device warrant if satisfied— there are reasonable grounds for the belief founding the application for the warrant; and for a remote application—that it would have been impracticable for the application to have been made in person. In deciding whether a surveillance device warrant should be issued, the judge or magistrate, being mindful of the highly intrusive nature of a surveillance device warrant, must have regard to— the nature and gravity of the relevant offence for which the warrant is sought; and the extent to which the privacy of any person is likely to be affected; and the existence of alternative ways of obtaining the evidence or information sought to be obtained and the extent to which those ways may help or prejudice the investigation; and the evidentiary or intelligence value of any information sought to be obtained; and any previous warrant of a similar kind sought or issued under this Act, the Crime and Corruption Act 2001 or a corresponding law, if known, in connection with the same offence; and any submissions made by a monitor. The judge or magistrate may issue a warrant for the use of a surveillance device in the office of a practising lawyer only if the application for the warrant relates to the lawyer’s involvement in a relevant offence. A magistrate may issue a warrant for the use of a tracking device only if the warrant does not authorise covert entry to a building by a person installing the device. s 330 ins 2005 No. 45 s 12 amd 2014 No. 21 s 94 (2) sch 2 (sec.330-ssec.1) A Supreme Court judge or a magistrate may issue a surveillance device warrant if satisfied— there are reasonable grounds for the belief founding the application for the warrant; and for a remote application—that it would have been impracticable for the application to have been made in person. (sec.330-ssec.2) In deciding whether a surveillance device warrant should be issued, the judge or magistrate, being mindful of the highly intrusive nature of a surveillance device warrant, must have regard to— the nature and gravity of the relevant offence for which the warrant is sought; and the extent to which the privacy of any person is likely to be affected; and the existence of alternative ways of obtaining the evidence or information sought to be obtained and the extent to which those ways may help or prejudice the investigation; and the evidentiary or intelligence value of any information sought to be obtained; and any previous warrant of a similar kind sought or issued under this Act, the Crime and Corruption Act 2001 or a corresponding law, if known, in connection with the same offence; and any submissions made by a monitor. (sec.330-ssec.3) The judge or magistrate may issue a warrant for the use of a surveillance device in the office of a practising lawyer only if the application for the warrant relates to the lawyer’s involvement in a relevant offence. (sec.330-ssec.4) A magistrate may issue a warrant for the use of a tracking device only if the warrant does not authorise covert entry to a building by a person installing the device. - (a) there are reasonable grounds for the belief founding the application for the warrant; and - (b) for a remote application—that it would have been impracticable for the application to have been made in person. - (a) the nature and gravity of the relevant offence for which the warrant is sought; and - (b) the extent to which the privacy of any person is likely to be affected; and - (c) the existence of alternative ways of obtaining the evidence or information sought to be obtained and the extent to which those ways may help or prejudice the investigation; and - (d) the evidentiary or intelligence value of any information sought to be obtained; and - (e) any previous warrant of a similar kind sought or issued under this Act, the Crime and Corruption Act 2001 or a corresponding law, if known, in connection with the same offence; and - (f) any submissions made by a monitor.