Crimes (Surveillance Devices) Act 2010 (ACT)

The matter before the court involved an application for the approval of the use of a surveillance device under the Crimes (Surveillance Devices) Act 2010 (ACT). The applicant sought approval for the use of a surveillance device in the Australian Capital Territory (ACT) based on an emergency authorisation issued by a judge in another jurisdiction. The respondent, who was subject to the surveillance, objected to the application on the grounds that the use of the surveillance device was not authorised under the ACT legislation and that the evidence obtained from its use would be inadmissible in any subsequent proceeding. The court was required to decide whether the evidence obtained from the use of the surveillance device under the emergency authorisation could be admitted in the ACT and whether the exercise of the powers under the emergency authorisation was approved under the relevant legislation.

The court held that the evidence obtained from the use of the surveillance device under the emergency authorisation was not inadmissible in any proceeding solely because the evidence was obtained before the approval under section 29 of the Crimes (Surveillance Devices) Act 2010 (ACT). The court also held that a corresponding warrant could be executed in the ACT in accordance with its terms as if it were a surveillance device warrant or retrieval warrant issued under the ACT legislation. The court further held that a corresponding emergency authorisation authorised the use of a surveillance device in the ACT, as if it were an emergency authorisation given under the ACT legislation. However, the court noted that the corresponding emergency authorisation did not apply at any time after a judge ordered, under a provision of a corresponding law that corresponded to section 29(4) of the ACT legislation, that the use of a surveillance device under the corresponding emergency authorisation cease.

The court concluded that the evidence obtained from the use of the surveillance device under the emergency authorisation could be admitted in the ACT and that the exercise of the powers under the emergency authorisation was approved under section 29 of the Crimes (Surveillance Devices) Act 2010 (ACT). The court further held that the respondent's objection to the application was invalid and that the applicant was entitled to the relief sought in the application.

The court granted the applicant's application for the approval of the use of the surveillance device under the emergency authorisation and ordered that any information obtained from or relating to the exercise of powers under the emergency authorisation or any record of that information be dealt with in accordance with the terms of the order.