Crimes (Surveillance Devices) Act 2010

Before deciding an application for approval in relation to an emergency authorisation given under section 25 (Emergency authorisation—risk of serious personal violence or substantial property damage), the judge must, in particular, and being mindful of the intrusive nature of using a surveillance device, consider the following:

the nature of the risk of serious violence to a person or substantial damage to property;

the extent to which issuing a surveillance device warrant would have helped reduce or avoid the risk;

the extent to which law enforcement officers could have used alternative methods of investigation to help reduce or avoid the risk;

how much the use of alternative methods of investigation could have helped reduce or avoid the risk;

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;

whether or not it was practicable in the circumstances to apply for a surveillance device warrant.

Before deciding an application for approval in relation to an emergency authorisation given under section 26 (Emergency authorisation—continued use of authorised surveillance device in participating jurisdiction), the judge must, in particular, and being mindful of the intrusive nature of using a surveillance device, consider the following:

the nature of the risk of the loss of evidence;

the extent to which issuing a surveillance device warrant would have helped reduce or avoid the risk;

the terms of the existing authorisation for the use of the surveillance device;

whether or not it was practicable in the circumstances to apply for a surveillance device warrant.