29Consideration of application

29 Consideration of application (1) Before deciding an application for approval in respect of an emergency authorisation given under section 26, the judge must, in particular, and being mindful of the intrusive nature of using a surveillance device, consider the following— (a) the nature of the risk of serious violence to a person or substantial damage to property; and (b) the extent to which issuing a surveillance device warrant would have helped reduce or avoid the risk; and (c) the extent to which law enforcement officers could have used alternative methods of investigation to help reduce or avoid the risk; and (d) how much the use of alternative methods of investigation could have helped reduce or avoid the risk; and (e) how much the use of alternative methods of investigation would have prejudiced the safety of the person or property because of delay or for another reason; and S. 29(1)(f) amended by No. 72/2011 s. 41(1). (f) whether or not it was practicable in the circumstances to apply for a surveillance device warrant; and S. 29(1)(g) inserted by No. 72/2011 s. 41(2). (g) any submissions made by a Public Interest Monitor. (2) Before deciding an application for approval in respect of an emergency authorisation given under section 27, the judge must, in particular, and being mindful of the intrusive nature of using a surveillance device, consider the following— (a) the nature of the serious and urgent circumstances in respect of which the emergency authorisation was sought; and (b) the extent to which law enforcement officers could have used alternative methods of investigation; and S. 29(2)(c) amended by No. 72/2011 s. 41(3). (c) whether or not it was practicable in the circumstances to apply for a surveillance device warrant; and S. 29(2)(d) inserted by No. 72/2011 s. 41(4). (d) any submissions made by a Public Interest Monitor. S. 30 substituted by No. 26/2004 s. 10.