Commonwealth Consolidated Acts Commonwealth Consolidated Acts(1) Before deciding an application for approval of the giving of an emergency authorisation given under subsection 28(1), the eligible Judge or nominated ART member considering the application 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;
(b) the extent to which issuing a surveillance device warrant would have helped reduce or avoid the risk;
(c) the extent to which law enforcement officers could have used alternative methods of investigation to help reduce or avoid the risk;
(d) how much the use of alternative methods of investigation could have helped reduce or avoid the risk;
(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;
(f) whether or not it was practicable in the circumstances to apply for a surveillance device warrant.
(1A) Before deciding an application for approval of the giving of an emergency authorisation given in response to an application under subsection 28(1A), the eligible Judge or nominated ART member considering the application must, in particular, and being mindful of the intrusive nature of accessing data held in the target computer mentioned in that subsection, consider the following:
(a) the nature of the risk of serious violence to a person or substantial damage to property;
(b) the extent to which issuing a computer access warrant would have helped reduce or avoid the risk;
(c) the extent to which law enforcement officers could have used alternative methods of investigation to help reduce or avoid the risk;
(d) how much the use of alternative methods of investigation could have helped reduce or avoid the risk;
(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;
(f) whether or not it was practicable in the circumstances to apply for a computer access warrant.
(1B) Before deciding an application for approval of the giving of an emergency authorisation given in response to an application under subsection 28(1C), the eligible Judge or nominated ART member considering the application must, in particular, and being mindful of the intrusive nature of accessing and disrupting data held in the target computer mentioned in that subsection, consider the following:
(a) the nature of the risk of serious violence to a person or substantial damage to property;
(b) the extent to which issuing a data disruption warrant would have helped reduce or avoid the risk;
(c) the extent to which law enforcement officers could have used alternative methods to help reduce or avoid the risk;
(d) how much the use of alternative methods could have helped reduce or avoid the risk;
(e) how much the use of alternative methods would have prejudiced the safety of the person or property because of delay or for another reason;
(f) whether or not it was practicable in the circumstances to apply for a data disruption warrant.
(2) Before deciding an application for approval of the giving of an emergency authorisation given under subsection 29(1), the eligible Judge or nominated ART member considering the application must, in particular, and being mindful of the intrusive nature of using a surveillance device, consider the following:
(a) the urgency of enforcing the recovery order;
(b) the extent to which use of a surveillance device would assist in the location and safe recovery of the child to whom the recovery order relates;
(c) the extent to which law enforcement officers could have used alternative methods to assist in the location and safe recovery of the child;
(d) how much the use of alternative methods to assist in the location and safe recovery of the child might have prejudiced the effective enforcement of the recovery order;
(e) whether or not it was practicable in the circumstances to apply for a surveillance device warrant.
(2A) Before deciding an application for approval of the giving of an emergency authorisation given in response to an application under subsection 29(1A), the eligible Judge or nominated ART member considering the application must, in particular, and being mindful of the intrusive nature of accessing data held in the target computer mentioned in that subsection, consider the following:
(a) the urgency of enforcing the recovery order;
(b) the extent to which access to data held in the target computer mentioned in that subsection would assist in the location and safe recovery of the child to whom the recovery order relates;
(c) the extent to which law enforcement officers could have used alternative methods to assist in the location and safe recovery of the child;
(d) how much the use of alternative methods to assist in the location and safe recovery of the child might have prejudiced the effective enforcement of the recovery order;
(e) whether or not it was practicable in the circumstances to apply for a computer access warrant.
(3) Before deciding an application for approval of the giving of an emergency authorisation given under subsection 30(1), the eligible Judge or nominated ART member 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 the loss of evidence;
(b) the extent to which issuing a surveillance device warrant would have helped reduce or avoid the risk;
(c) the extent to which law enforcement officers could have used alternative methods of investigation to help reduce or avoid the risk;
(d) how much the use of alternative methods of investigation could have helped reduce or avoid the risk;
(e) whether or not it was practicable in the circumstances to apply for a surveillance device warrant.
(4) Before deciding an application for approval of the giving of an emergency authorisation given in response to an application under subsection 30(1A), the eligible Judge or nominated ART member must, in particular, and being mindful of the intrusive nature of accessing data held in the target computer mentioned in that subsection, consider the following:
(a) the nature of the risk of the loss of evidence;
(b) the extent to which issuing a computer access warrant would have helped reduce or avoid the risk;
(c) the extent to which law enforcement officers could have used alternative methods of investigation to help reduce or avoid the risk;
(d) how much the use of alternative methods of investigation could have helped reduce or avoid the risk;
(e) whether or not it was practicable in the circumstances to apply for a computer access warrant.