Terrorism (Police Powers) Regulation 2021

The Regulation revolves around a handful of documentable concepts that determine who decides, what must be recorded, what access is permitted, and what statutory exclusions apply.

Eligible Judge: The term eligible Judge is not defined in the Regulation itself; the instrument directs that it has the same meaning as in the Act, Part 3 (s 3). The Regulation therefore relies on the Act for the identity, functions and qualifications of such Judges. Several operative provisions (notably ss 6 and 7) attach duties and powers directly to an eligible Judge.

Subject excluded under preventative detention orders: For the purposes of the Act, s 26X(3), the Regulation expressly excludes “the subject” (that is, a person who is the subject of a preventative detention order) from the application of a specified list of provisions of the Crimes (Administration of Sentences) Act 1999 and associated regulations (s 4(a)-(c)). The Regulation lists those provisions by section and clause numbers; it also specifies a limited carve-out in relation to enabling speech to the Official Visitor under certain clauses of the Crimes (Administration of Sentences) Regulation 2014 (s 4(b)).

Covert search warrants: The Regulation supplements the Act’s covert search warrant framework by prescribing which senior police positions may authorise applications (s 5) and by identifying mandatory records that must be kept in relation to covert search warrants (s 6(1)). The records regime distinguishes between the warrant application, judicial records, occupier’s notices, and execution reports.

Records and inspection: The Regulation requires retention of four categories of materials relating to covert search warrants and prescribes a narrow inspection pathway at the Supreme Court registry for two identifiable classes of persons: the occupier who occupied the premises at the time of execution, and persons who were served with an occupier’s notice (s 6(2)). Inspection is limited to ordinary business hours of the registry (s 6(2)).

Certificates by eligible Judges: The Regulation establishes a judicial certification mechanism that permits an eligible Judge to prevent specified material from being inspected where two concrete grounds are met: disclosure may reveal a person’s identity placing them or others at risk, or disclosure may seriously compromise an investigation (s 7(1)). Certified material is excluded from inspection (s 7(2)), the certificate must be kept with the document (s 7(3)), and revocation is possible after considering submissions from an interested party (s 7(4)).

Delegation and forms: The Regulation identifies two specified police roles that may authorise applications for covert search warrants (s 5) and authorises the Attorney General to approve forms needed for administration of the Act (s 8). These are governance mechanisms that allocate decision-making power and administrative standard-setting.

Repeal and saving: The Regulation repeals the preceding Terrorism (Police Powers) Regulation 2016 and preserves the continuing effect of acts, matters and things that operated under the repealed instrument (s 9). The commencement clause locates the start of effect at publication on the NSW legislation website (s 2).

Those concepts together create a regime that allocates recordkeeping, inspection and secrecy decisions between police, the judiciary and the Supreme Court registry, and that changes how certain custodial or corrections-related provisions apply to persons under preventative detention orders.

This Regulation is narrow in scope but affects several clearly identifiable categories of persons and offices, and it shifts rights and administrative duties among them.

Detainees subject to preventative detention orders: Section 4 applies directly to “the subject” of a preventative detention order (s 4). The effect is to remove the application of specified provisions of the Crimes (Administration of Sentences) Act 1999 and associated regulations to those detainees, for the purposes of the Act, s 26X(3). The named provisions are enumerated in s 4(a)-(c). One explicit effect in the text is to exclude certain clauses of the Crimes (Administration of Sentences) Regulation 2014 “to the extent that it would enable an inmate to speak to the Official Visitor” (s 4(b)). Practically, those persons will face a different set of procedural entitlements and restrictions than ordinary inmates covered by the listed provisions.

Occupiers of premises subject to covert search warrants: Persons who occupied premises when a covert search warrant was executed are granted an inspection right at the Supreme Court registry to inspect certain records related to the warrant (s 6(2)(a)). That right is time-limited to ordinary business hours of the registry and limited to the specific categories of documents required to be kept (s 6(1), s 6(2)).

Persons given an occupier’s notice: Any person who is given an occupier’s notice under the Act is likewise entitled to inspect the warrant-related records at the Supreme Court registry (s 6(2)(b)). The Regulation therefore draws a distinction between those who received formal notice of occupation status and those who did not.

Eligible Judges: The Regulation assigns powers and duties to eligible Judges. They are the only persons authorised to make certificates withholding material from inspection under the specified test in s 7, and to revoke such certificates after considering submissions from an interested party (s 7(1), s 7(4)). They also create a recordkeeping category for “a record relating to the warrant made by or on behalf of an eligible Judge” (s 6(1)(b)).

Specified police officers and their offices: Only two senior counter‑terrorism roles are prescribed as delegates who may authorise applications for covert search warrants under the Act, s 27E(2): the Assistant Commissioner responsible for counter terrorism and the Superintendent responsible for counter terrorism investigations (s 5). The prescription narrows who in the police hierarchy can authorise such applications and therefore affects internal police decision processes and accountability channels.

Attorney General and administrative staff: The Attorney General gains an express power to approve forms necessary or convenient for administration of the Act (s 8). This affects agencies that prepare or file documents under the Act by vesting the Attorney General with a standardising authority.

Supreme Court registry staff and the registry as a locus for inspection: The Regulation requires that the specified records be made available for inspection at the Supreme Court registry during ordinary business hours (s 6(2)). Registry staff will therefore be the gatekeepers for inspection access, managing requests by occupiers and notice recipients and handling certified material in accordance with s 7.

Persons whose identity or investigative detail could be in the records: Section 7 creates a mechanism to withhold material that may disclose identity or compromise investigations; such persons are affected by the power because the court may limit disclosure on safety or investigative grounds (s 7(1)).

Entities or persons carrying out acts that proceeded under the 2016 Regulation: Section 9(2) preserves acts, matters and things that had effect under the repealed 2016 Regulation, so persons or agencies continuing operations begun under the old regulation are affected through continuity.

Overall, the primary net effect is to reshape procedural entitlements and administrative responsibilities across detainees under preventative detention orders, occupiers and noticees related to covert searches, eligible Judges, named police delegates, the Attorney General, and the Supreme Court registry.

The Regulation creates a compact set of positive duties, discretionary powers and inspection rights that interact across police, the judiciary and the registry.

Recordkeeping duties (police and judicial records): The Regulation mandates retention of four categories of records in relation to covert search warrants (s 6(1)). The required records are: (a) the written application for a covert search warrant; (b) a record relating to the warrant made by or on behalf of an eligible Judge; (c) a copy of an occupier’s notice; and (d) a report on the execution of the warrant (s 6(1)(a)-(d)). The duty to keep these records is stated as being "for the purposes of the Act, section 27L(2)" which situates the obligation within the Act's broader warrant-records scheme (s 6(1)).

Inspection rights (occupier and occupier’s notice recipients): The Regulation provides that the specified records must be made available for inspection at the Supreme Court registry by: (a) a person who, when the warrant was executed, occupied the premises to which the warrant relates; and (b) another person who is given an occupier’s notice relating to the warrant under the Act (s 6(2)(a)-(b)). The inspection right is confined to the ordinary business hours of the registry (s 6(2)).

Certification power and withholding duty (eligible Judge): An eligible Judge may issue a certificate to the effect that a document or part of a document contains matter that either discloses a person’s identity which, if disclosed, may jeopardise safety, or if disclosed may seriously compromise an investigation (s 7(1)(a)-(b)). Where such a certificate is issued, the document or relevant part "must not be made available for inspection" under s 6(2) (s 7(2)), and the certificate must be kept with the document (s 7(3)). The certification power therefore imposes a withholding obligation on the registry and a corresponding protective entitlement to those persons whose identities or investigative information require protection (s 7).

Revocation process (eligible Judge): The Regulation allows an eligible Judge, whether or not the Judge who issued the certificate, to revoke the certificate if satisfied, after considering submissions from an interested party, that disclosure may not jeopardise safety or may no longer seriously compromise the investigation (s 7(4)). This creates a limited procedural pathway for interested parties to seek disclosure by making submissions to the Judge who issued or who can revoke the certificate.

Authorisation duties (police delegates): For the purpose of the Act, s 27E(2), the Regulation prescribes that only two police positions may authorise applications for covert search warrants: the Assistant Commissioner responsible for counter terrorism and the Superintendent responsible for counter terrorism investigations (s 5). The practical effect is an internal authorisation duty concentrated in these roles.

Form-approval power (Attorney General): The Attorney General has the power to approve forms necessary or convenient for administration of the Act (s 8). This is an administrative duty that affects how agencies and officers prepare and lodge documentation under the Act.

Exclusions from specified corrections provisions (effect on detainees): For the purposes of the Act, s 26X(3), the Regulation excludes the subject of a preventative detention order from the application of the listed provisions of the Crimes (Administration of Sentences) Act 1999, the Crimes (Administration of Sentences) Regulation 2014 and certain regulations made under s 79(1)(i)-(l) (s 4(a)-(c)). This produces a statutory constraint on the application of those named provisions to such subjects , a negative duty on custodial authorities not to apply those listed provisions to the subject under the Act's preventative detention framework.

Repeal and saving (administrative continuity): The Regulation repeals the prior 2016 Regulation (s 9(1)) but saves acts, matters and things that had effect under it so they continue under this Regulation (s 9(2)). This imposes an administrative expectation on agencies to treat pre-existing acts as continuing but subject now to the terms of this Regulation.

Notably, the Regulation contains no express criminal penalties or monetary fines within its text. Its duties and rights are predominantly procedural, allocating recordkeeping, inspection, certification and authorisation responsibilities among the judiciary, police and registry (ss 5-8).

This Regulation does not itself create express criminal offences, pecuniary penalties or an enforcement penalty regime. The instrument prescribes procedural obligations, decision-making allocations and inspection pathways but does not state sanctions for breach.

Enforcement mechanisms implicit in the text are administrative and judicial rather than punitive:

• Inspection enforcement: The Regulation requires that the specified records be made available for inspection at the Supreme Court registry to certain categories of persons (s 6(2)). The practical enforcement of that obligation will be administered by the registry under its ordinary processes; the Regulation does not set out a statutory penalty for failing to make documents available, nor does it create a civil cause of action in the Regulation itself.

• Judicial certification and withholding: The authority to withhold material from inspection rests with an eligible Judge via a certificate (s 7(1)-(3)). The mechanism for contesting withholding is procedural: an interested party may make submissions that the eligible Judge may consider in deciding whether to revoke the certificate (s 7(4)). The Regulation does not expressly provide further review routes (for example, appeal timelines or interlocutory procedures within the Regulation text), nor does it prescribe enforcement penalties for improper certification.

• Delegation and internal police accountability: The Regulation prescribes which police positions may authorise applications for covert search warrants (s 5). The text does not create statutory sanctions for unauthorised officers who purportedly authorise an application; enforcement in that respect would depend on the Act’s wider framework and usual administrative or disciplinary mechanisms outside the Regulation.

• Forms and administrative compliance: The Attorney General may approve forms for administration of the Act (s 8). The Regulation does not impose a sanction for non-use of Attorney General‑approved forms; compliance incentives will be administrative and practical.

• Continuity provision: The repeal and saving clause (s 9) preserves the effect of acts done under the previous regulation. The provision does not create enforcement mechanisms but prevents disruption to ongoing matters by saving their effect.

Because the Regulation itself is procedural, any enforcement or penalty architecture for contraventions of the Act, improper detention, misuse of warrants, breaches of custodial law or contempt of court is not contained within the text supplied. Where enforcement consequences are relevant they will arise from enabling provisions of the Act, the Crimes (Administration of Sentences) Act 1999, the Supreme Court’s general powers, or other statutes and rules not reproduced in this Regulation. The Regulation confines itself to specifying process, records and certifying powers, and does not itself prescribe penalties.

The Regulation explicitly sits as subordinate legislation to the Terrorism (Police Powers) Act 2002 and cross-references several other statutes and subordinate instruments. Its operative effect is to supplement and, in one respect, to exclude the operation of provisions of other Acts for the specific cohort and functions identified.

Relationship with the Act: The Regulation repeatedly frames its provisions “for the purposes of the Act” when prescribing exclusions, delegations and recordkeeping obligations (see ss 3, 4, 5, 6). For example, the exclusion of certain provisions for detainees is expressly for the purposes of s 26X(3) of the Act (s 4). Similarly, the prescription of who may authorise applications for covert search warrants is for the purposes of s 27E(2) of the Act (s 5), and the recordkeeping obligation references s 27L(2) of the Act (s 6(1)). The Regulation therefore functions as an instrument that clarifies or narrows how the Act’s warrant, detention and judicial processes operate in practice.

Interaction with the Crimes (Administration of Sentences) Act 1999 and its regulations: Section 4 explicitly excludes the subject of a preventative detention order from the application of a set list of provisions in the Crimes (Administration of Sentences) Act 1999, and certain clauses of the Crimes (Administration of Sentences) Regulation 2014, and regulations made under the Act’s s 79(1)(i)-(l). The listed provisions (s 4(a)-(c)) are identified by their section and clause numbers rather than being paraphrased. The Regulation therefore modifies the interface between preventative detention under the Act and the typical corrections framework, by removing the applicability of specified corrections law provisions to the subject in that context.

Supreme Court registry processes and judicial functions: The Regulation requires that the specified records be made available “at the Supreme Court registry” and provides that an eligible Judge may certify material and revoke such certificates (ss 6-7). This places the inspection mechanism and the judicial certification power squarely within the court registry and judiciary’s operational domain and interacts with the court’s existing administrative and protective powers. The instrument does not, within its text, define how registry procedures interact with the court’s rules of practice or evidence; those interactions will be governed by the Supreme Court’s own rules and the Act.

Continuity with prior subordinate legislation: The Regulation repeals the Terrorism (Police Powers) Regulation 2016 (s 9(1)) and saves acts or matters that had effect under it so they continue under the new Regulation (s 9(2)). That clause is an express transitional device to preserve legal effects and interactions that arose under the prior instrument.

Interpretation Act 1987: Section 3 directs readers to the Interpretation Act 1987 for definitions and other interpretive provisions that affect how this Regulation is read. That embeds default statutory construction rules and time provisions (for example, commencement) as governed by the Interpretation Act.

Administrative law and judicial review: Although not spelled out in the Regulation, the allocation of powers to eligible Judges to certify and revoke, and the prescription of which police roles may authorise applications, will interact with general principles of administrative law, including procedural fairness in some contexts. The Regulation itself specifies that revocation will occur after an eligible Judge has “considered submissions from an interested party” (s 7(4)), which embeds an opportunity to make submissions but does not itself enumerate avenues of judicial review or appeal. Any challenge to decisions under the Regulation (for example, to withhold documents or to authorise a warrant) would engage the Act and general remedies available in judicial review processes outside this Regulation.

In sum, the Regulation acts as a targeted procedural supplement to the Act that reconfigures particular touchpoints with corrections law and prescribes specified judicial and registry processes for covert warrant records. Its effectiveness and operational interaction therefore depend on the Act, the Crimes (Administration of Sentences) legislation, Supreme Court practice, and the Interpretation Act.

This Regulation is framed as a repeal and replacement of an earlier subordinate instrument. The text contains explicit transitional language but records no internal amending provisions beyond the replacement.

• Repeal of prior Regulation: Section 9(1) repeals the Terrorism (Police Powers) Regulation 2016. The repeal is absolute as stated.

• Saving provision: Section 9(2) contains a saving clause: "Any act, matter or thing that, immediately before the repeal of the Terrorism (Police Powers) Regulation 2016, had effect under that Regulation continues to have effect under this Regulation." The saving clause preserves continuity of legal effects and administrative actions taken under the former instrument.

• Commencement: Section 2 establishes that the Regulation commences on the day it is published on the NSW legislation website. The commencement clause also includes a note that the Regulation repeals and replaces the 2016 Regulation, which otherwise would have been repealed on a fixed date under the Subordinate Legislation Act 1989, s 10(2). The Regulation therefore adopts a direct commencement on publication rather than on a deferred statutory timetable.

• Definitions and cross-reference updates: Section 3 repeats and clarifies that eligible Judge is to be read according to the Act, Part 3, and records that the Act and the Interpretation Act 1987 contain definitions that affect the Regulation's interpretation. This indicates no substantive change to the Act but a reliance on external definitions.

• No subsequent amendments recorded in the instrument: The legislative text supplied contains no schedule of amendments or amendment history beyond repeal of the 2016 Regulation and the saving provision. The Regulation therefore appears, within its text, as a clean replacement rather than as a set of incremental amendments.

Because no dates, serial amendment entries, or subsequent amending instruments are included in the text provided, there is no internal amendment trail within this Regulation beyond the single repeal-and-save change. Any further amendment history would need to be sourced from external legislative records or the NSW legislation website, which is outside the text supplied.

The Regulation as provided contains no references to case law, judicial determinations, or litigation history. It does not cite any judicial decisions, nor does it identify prior litigation that has interpreted its provisions.

Several operative elements of the Regulation,particularly the exclusion of listed provisions for detainees under preventative detention orders (s 4), the records and inspection scheme (s 6), and the certification power for eligible Judges (s 7),are the sorts of measures that, in practice, may give rise to litigation or judicial review (for example, disputes over the scope of the exclusion or the propriety of a certificate). However, the Regulation itself does not record any such litigation, and it names no cases.

Because the Regulation repeatedly defers to other instruments for definitions and substantive powers,most importantly the Terrorism (Police Powers) Act 2002, the Crimes (Administration of Sentences) Act 1999 and the Crimes (Administration of Sentences) Regulation 2014,any litigation that engages the operational effect of this Regulation is likely to involve those Acts and instruments. The text supplied does not include decisions or references to adjudication under those statutes.

If a user requires case law that interprets the Act, the corrections statutes, or the operation of covert search warrant records and judicial certificates, they will need to consult external judicial databases and authorities. The Regulation itself offers no litigation citations or precedent within its text.

The Regulation is short and tightly drafted, yet it contains several practical trap points and points of legal friction that practitioners, custodial authorities, police and registries should track closely.

Limited inspection class and practical access constraints: The Regulation limits inspection of warrant records to two specific classes: the occupier at the time of execution and recipients of occupier’s notices (s 6(2)). Access is available only at the Supreme Court registry and only during ordinary business hours (s 6(2)). The combination of narrow standing and a single physical locus for inspection (the registry) may create practical access hurdles for people who are entitled to inspect but lack capacity to attend in person or who need access outside registry hours. The Regulation does not provide an alternative inspection pathway, remote access procedure, or a time limit for compliance by the registry.

Narrow scope of preserved records: The Regulation mandates four categories of records (s 6(1)). Materials outside those named categories are not required by this Regulation to be kept at the registry. That creates a risk that persons inspecting the registry records will not see material that may be relevant to complaints or challenges, because the obligation to retain it is not articulated here. The Regulation does not require retention of broader materials such as internal police notes that are not the written application, judicial record, occupier’s notice, or execution report.

Judicial certificate scope and opacity: An eligible Judge may certify that a document, or part of it, must not be made available for inspection where disclosure may reveal a person’s identity and jeopardise safety, or may seriously compromise an investigation (s 7(1)-(2)). The grounds are expressed in plain language, but the Regulation does not require that the certificate explain the factual basis in any particular detail, nor does it create a published or logged reasoning requirement in the text provided beyond keeping the certificate with the document (s 7(3)). The pathway to challenge is limited to making submissions to the Judge for revocation (s 7(4)), which may be difficult in secrecy-sensitive cases. The Regulation does not require an interlocutory hearing timetable, does not provide for independent oversight outside the eligible Judge, and does not specify timeframes for consideration of submissions.

Concentration of authorisation power: The Regulation prescribes only two police roles that may authorise covert search warrant applications (s 5). That prescription centralises authorisation within specialist counter‑terrorism leadership roles , the Assistant Commissioner responsible for counter terrorism and the Superintendent responsible for counter terrorism investigations (s 5). Concentration simplifies chains of command but may create bottlenecks for timely authorisation or practical coverage gaps where those officers are not available. The Regulation contains no mechanism for temporary substitution or delegation beyond the two named positions.

Exclusion of corrections provisions for detainees: Section 4 lists a sizeable set of provisions from the Crimes (Administration of Sentences) Act 1999 and the Crimes (Administration of Sentences) Regulation 2014 that are excluded from applying to a subject of a preventative detention order for the purposes of the Act, s 26X(3). One clause explicitly carves out clauses “to the extent that it would enable an inmate to speak to the Official Visitor” (s 4(b)), which signals a loss of access to that oversight mechanism in certain circumstances. The Regulation does not describe alternative oversight arrangements or safeguards that replace the excluded provisions.

No penalties in the instrument: The Regulation sets duties but contains no sanctions for non-compliance (for example, no penalties for failing to keep records or to make them available). Enforcement therefore depends on external mechanisms (Act provisions, court practice or administrative discipline), which are not specified here.

Form approval power centralisation: The Attorney General’s power to approve forms (s 8) centralises administrative standard-setting. That is efficient for standardisation but gives the Attorney General discretion over documentary form. The text does not provide transparency requirements, template timelines, or appeal routes if an agency seeks an approved form and is refused.

Continuity without amendment detail: The saving clause (s 9(2)) preserves prior acts done under the old regulation. Practitioners should check whether the old instrument contained additional practice guidance or administrative forms now superseded. The Regulation does not include a transitional schedule detailing who must refile what materials, or transitional timelines for records created under the 2016 Regulation.

No procedures for third-party requests: Parties other than the occupier or occupier’s notice recipient (for example, lawyers for third parties, journalists, non-government oversight bodies) have no express inspection right in the Regulation. The route for their access would require establishing interest or relying on other statutory routes not set out here.

In short, the Regulation streamlines certain processes and centralises discretion, but does so without ancillary transparency or procedural detail in several areas. Practitioners should take care to track custody and registry practices against the narrow list of required records, prepare for the judiciary’s certificate power, and be alert to access constraints caused by the limited inspection class and registry locus.

This section distils the Regulation’s operational requirements and sets out practical steps for agencies, police units, registries, custodial authorities and affected persons to meet the instrument’s duties and to exercise or preserve rights provided by the Regulation.

For police units executing or applying for covert search warrants

• Authorisation: Ensure that any application for a covert search warrant is authorised only by one of the prescribed positions: (a) the Assistant Commissioner responsible for counter terrorism; or (b) the Superintendent responsible for counter terrorism investigations (s 5). Develop internal written procedures that document who within the unit is empowered to submit an application under the authorisation of those officers and how delegation within the unit is recorded.

• Keep the four prescribed records: Maintain and archive the following documents in a manner that allows their transfer to the Supreme Court registry for inspection purposes (s 6(1)):

  • the written application for the covert search warrant (s 6(1)(a));
  • the record relating to the warrant made by or on behalf of an eligible Judge (s 6(1)(b));
  • a copy of any occupier’s notice (s 6(1)(c));
  • a report on the execution of the warrant (s 6(1)(d)).

• Prepare materials for registry delivery: Establish an administrative workflow to ensure the above documents are lodged with the Supreme Court registry in accordance with any registry directions, and are accessible during ordinary business hours for inspection by entitled persons (s 6(2)). Maintain secure versions where parts may later be certified for withholding (s 7).

For eligible Judges and judicial staff

• Use the certificate power with documented rationale: When considering issuing a certificate under s 7(1), record in the judicial file the factual basis that supports the statutory grounds: that disclosure may reveal identity which could jeopardise safety, or that disclosure may seriously compromise an investigation (s 7(1)(a)-(b)). Keep the certificate with the relevant document as required (s 7(3)).

• Manage revocation submissions: Implement a process for receiving and considering submissions from interested parties in the event an interested party seeks revocation of a certificate. Ensure reasons for revocation or continuing non-disclosure are recorded (s 7(4)).

For the Supreme Court registry

• Provide inspection during ordinary business hours: Make the specified records available for inspection at the registry during ordinary business hours to the occupant at the time of execution and to persons given an occupier’s notice (s 6(2)). Create an intake and identity verification process so registrars can confirm entitlement and maintain confidentiality where certificates have been issued (s 7).

• Handle certified material correctly: When a certificate has been issued under s 7, ensure that the document or part-of-document subject to certification is not made available for inspection and retain the certificate with the document (s 7(2)-(3)). Establish secure storage and logging protocols.

For custodial authorities handling subjects of preventative detention orders

• Apply the exclusions: For persons who are the subject of a preventative detention order, do not apply the listed provisions of the Crimes (Administration of Sentences) Act 1999, the Crimes (Administration of Sentences) Regulation 2014, or the prescribed regulations made under s 79(1)(i)-(l) to the extent the Regulation excludes them (s 4(a)-(c)). Explicitly record the reliance on s 4 in custodial records so the treatment of the detainee is documented.

• Note limitations on Official Visitor contact: The Regulation explicitly excludes clauses of the Crimes (Administration of Sentences) Regulation 2014 “to the extent that it would enable an inmate to speak to the Official Visitor” (s 4(b)). Ensure staff are aware of this limit and document alternative oversight steps taken where applicable.

For persons entitled to inspect records (occupiers and occupier’s notice recipients)

• Prepare identity and proof of occupation: Bring evidence of occupancy at the time of execution and any occupier’s notice when seeking inspection at the Supreme Court registry (s 6(2)). Plan attendance during registry business hours.

• Where material is certified, make submissions: If access is refused because an eligible Judge has certified material under s 7, consider lodging submissions to the eligible Judge as an interested party seeking revocation (s 7(4)). Document and serve submissions in accordance with any registry directions.

For the Attorney General and agencies preparing forms

• Coordinate form approval: If a form is necessary or convenient for administration of the Act, seek Attorney General approval under s 8. Maintain copies of approved forms and associated authorisations for audit and compliance.

Cross-cutting administrative controls

• Logging and chain-of-custody: Implement robust chain-of-custody logs for all documents that must be kept under s 6(1), including timestamps for lodging at the registry and for any inspection. Where parts of documents are certified, maintain redaction logs and justification files.

• Record retention policy aligned to the Regulation: Adopt retention and destruction schedules that comply with the Regulation’s obligations and the Supreme Court registry’s practices. Ensure retention of documents created under the repealed 2016 Regulation is handled in a way that preserves their continuing effect under s 9(2).

• Training and internal guidance: Provide targeted training for counter‑terrorism officers, registrars, custodial staff and legal advisers on the scope of inspection rights, the certificate power, the limited classes entitled to inspect, and the special exclusions for preventative detention order subjects.

• Document decisions and compliance steps: Where the Regulation limits or denies entitlements (for example, where corrections provisions are excluded under s 4 or where certificates withhold material under s 7), record the legal basis for those choices and the operational steps taken to comply with the Regulation.

Following these steps will translate the Regulation’s narrow, prescriptive duties into operational practice: authorisation limited to named positions (s 5), required records kept (s 6(1)), inspection available to a tight class (s 6(2)), certificates recorded and retained (s 7), and forms approved by the Attorney General where necessary (s 8).