(1) An inspector may
apply to a JP for an entry warrant using remote communication if the inspector
reasonably considers it necessary to do so because of —
(a)
urgent circumstances; or
(b)
other special circumstances.
Note for this subsection:
For the purposes of
paragraph (b), an example of special circumstances is the inspector’s
remote location.
(2) The application
—
(a)
cannot be made before the inspector prepares the written application complying
with section 167(3); but
(b) may
be made before the oath is administered for the application.
(3) The JP may issue
the entry warrant (the original warrant ) only if the JP is satisfied that
—
(a) it
was necessary for the application to be made under this section; and
(b) the
way the application was made was appropriate.
(4) After the JP
issues the original warrant —
(a) the
JP must immediately give a copy of the original warrant to the inspector using
remote communication if that is reasonably practicable to do; or
(b)
otherwise —
(i)
the JP must tell the inspector the information referred
to in section 167(5); and
(ii)
the inspector must complete a form of warrant, including
by writing on it the information referred to in section 167(5).
(5) The copy of the
original warrant referred to in subsection (4)(a), or the form of warrant
completed under subsection (4)(b), is a duplicate of, and has the same force
and effect as, the original warrant.
(6) The inspector
must, as soon as is reasonably practicable, send to the JP —
(a) the
written application complying with section 167(3) (with the oath
administered); and
(b) if
the inspector completed a form of warrant under subsection (4)(b) — the
completed form of warrant.
(7) On receiving any
document under subsection (6), the JP must attach it to the original warrant.
(8) Despite subsection
(5), if —
(a) an
issue arises in a proceeding about whether anything done was authorised
because of an entry warrant issued under this section; and
(b) the
original warrant is not produced in evidence,
the onus of proof is
on the person relying on the lawfulness of the thing done to prove that it was
authorised because of an entry warrant.