Telecommunications (Interception and Access) Regulations 2017
Form 4D—Named person warrant for post‑seForm 4D—Named person warrant for post‑sentence order application—telecommunications devices
Start here
Get a plain-English read of Form 4D—Named person warrant for post‑se
Turn the raw legal text into a practical explanation grounded in Telecommunications (Interception and Access) Regulations 2017.
Form 4D—Named person warrant for post‑sentence order application—telecommunications devices
Commonwealth of Australia
Telecommunications (Interception and Access) Act 1979
NAMED PERSON WARRANT FOR POST‑SENTENCE ORDER APPLICATION — TELECOMMUNICATIONS DEVICES
| Particular person(named person) | [full known name, other known names, other known identifying information (e.g. date of birth)] |
|---|---|
| Particular telecommunications *device/*devices | [For each telecommunication device, the unique number assigned to the device (if known) and other known unique identifying factors] |
| Applicant agency | [name] |
1 Authorisation
(1) I, [name], *an eligible Judge/*a nominated ART member within the meaning of the Telecommunications (Interception and Access) Act 1979 (the Act), acting under section 46A of the Act, authorise interceptions of communications made by means of the particular telecommunications *device/*devices that the named person mentioned above is using, or is likely to use. (2) I am satisfied, on the basis of the information given to me by the applicant agency, that: (a) Division 3 of Part 2‑5 of the Act has been complied with in relation to the application for this warrant; and *(b) because of urgent circumstances, it was necessary to make the application by telephone; and (c) there are reasonable grounds for suspecting that the named person is using, or is likely to use, more than one telecommunications service; and (d) the named person is a terrorist offender in relation to whom an application for a post‑sentence order could be made; and (e) the named person is detained in custody; and (f) there are reasonable grounds to suspect that there is an appreciable risk of the named person committing a serious Part 5.3 or 5.3A offence; and (g) consideration is being given, will be given, or is likely to be given, by the AFP Minister (or a person on behalf of the AFP Minister), as to whether to apply for a post‑sentence order in relation to the named person; and (h) information that would be likely to be obtained by intercepting under a warrant communications made by means of the particular telecommunications *device/*devices that the named person is using, or is likely to use, would be likely to substantially assist in connection with determining whether to apply for the post‑sentence order. (3) I am satisfied, on the basis of the information given to me by the applicant agency, that the warrant should be issued having regard to the following matters only: (a) how much the privacy of any person or persons would be likely to be interfered with by intercepting under a warrant communications made by means of the particular telecommunications *device/*devices used, or likely to be used, by the named person; (b) how much the information referred to in paragraph (2)(h) would be likely to assist in connection with determining whether to apply for the post‑sentence order; (c) to what extent methods (including the use of a warrant issued under section 46 of the Act) for determining whether to apply for the post‑sentence order that do not involve the use of a warrant issued under section 46A of the Act in relation to the named person have been used by, or are available to, the applicant agency; (d) how much the use of such methods would be likely to assist in connection with determining whether to apply for the post‑sentence order; (e) how much the use of such methods would be likely to prejudice determining whether to apply for the post‑sentence order, whether because of delay or for any other reason; (f) whether intercepting under a warrant communications referred to in paragraph (a) would be the method that is likely to have the least interference with any person’s privacy; *(g) [if the applicant agency is an interception agency of Victoria] any submissions made by the Victorian PIM under section 44A of the Act to me; *(h) [if the applicant agency is an interception agency of Queensland] any submissions made by the Queensland PIM under section 45 of the Act to me. (4) I am satisfied that: *there are no other practicable methods available to the applicant agency at the time of making the application to identify the telecommunications services used, or likely to be used, by the named person. *interception of communications made to or from a telecommunications service used, or likely to be used, by the named person would not otherwise be practicable. (5) This warrant is issued to determine whether to make an application for a post‑sentence order in relation to [the name of the person in relation to whom the application would be made].