(a) there was a risk of serious violence to a person or substantial damage to
property; and
(b) using a surveillance device may have helped reduce the risk; and
(c) it was not practicable in the circumstances to apply for a
surveillance device warrant.
(a) the recovery order was in force at the time the emergency authorisation
was given; and
(b) there were reasonable grounds to suspect that:
(i) the enforcement of the recovery order was urgent; and
(ii) using a surveillance device may have assisted in the prompt location
and safe recovery of the child to whom the order relates; and
(iii) it was not practicable in the circumstances to apply for a
surveillance device warrant.
(a) there were reasonable grounds to suspect that:
(i) there was a risk of loss of evidence; and
(ii) using the surveillance device may have helped reduce the risk; and
(b) it was not practicable in the circumstances to apply for a
surveillance device warrant.
(a) unless paragraph (b) appliesissue a surveillance device warrant
for the continued use of the surveillance device as if the application for the
approval were an application for a surveillance device warrant under
Division 2 of Part 2; or
(b) if the Judge or member is satisfied that since the application for the
emergency authorisation the activity that required surveillance has
ceasedorder that the use of the surveillance device cease.
(a) order that the use of the surveillance device cease; or
(b) if the Judge or member is of the view that although the situation did
not warrant the emergency authorisation at the time that authorisation
was given, the use of a surveillance device warrant under
Division 2 of Part 2 is currently justifiedissue a
surveillance device warrant for the subsequent use of such a device as
if the application for the approval were an application for a
surveillance device warrant under Division 2 of Part 2.