Document ID: chunk:federal_register_of_legislation:C2025C00037:section:34:p3
Version: federal_register_of_legislation:C2025C00037
Segment Type: section
Provision Reference: s 34 (pt 3/3)
Character Range: 221622–223392

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.