The Court held that s 4(4) of the CICO Act exhaustively prescribes the content of an undercover operation approval and does not require identification of the specific serious criminal behaviour or offence; any such reference is surplusage that cannot invalidate the approval unless it reveals a jurisdictional misstep. The SD Act does not regulate combination surveillance devices separately from their component devices, so a warrant authorising listening and optical surveillance devices of sufficient number authorises a combined listening-and-optical device without needing to specify it as a 'combination device'. An aerial asset's optical recording device was held to be an optical surveillance device rather than a 'tracking device' under the SD Act, with the definition of tracking device requiring the device itself to determine geo-positional or location data. Evidence of flight from premises was admissible as circumstantial evidence relevant to identification and interpretation of surveillance recordings, but not as consciousness of guilt evidence.
The full text is available to signed-in members, including the 1 later case that cites this judgment.