Section 23XWOB — Crimes Act 1914: Securing the presence of offender at hearing—offender not in custody
Text of the provision Official document
(1) If: (a) an application is made under section 23XWO to a judge or magistrate for an order for the carrying out of a forensic procedure on an offender; and (b) the offender is neither in custody nor detained under a law of the Commonwealth, a State or a Territory; the judge or magistrate may, on the application of a constable: (c) issue a summons for the appearance of the offender at the hearing of the application; or (d) issue a warrant for the arrest of the offender for the purpose of bringing the offender before the judge or magistrate for the hearing of the application. (2) An application for a summons under subsection (1) must be: (a) made by information on oath or affirmation; and (b) accompanied by an affidavit dealing with matters referred to in paragraphs (3)(a) and (b). (3) The judge or magistrate may issue a summons only if satisfied: (a) that the issue of the summons is necessary to ensure the appearance of the offender at the hearing of the application made under section 23XWO; or (b) that the issue of the summons is otherwise justified. (4) An application for a warrant under subsection (1) must be: (a) made by information on oath or affirmation; and (b) accompanied by an affidavit dealing with matters referred to in paragraphs (5)(a), (b) and (c). (5) The judge or magistrate may issue a warrant only if satisfied: (a) that the arrest is necessary to ensure the appearance of the offender at the hearing of the application made under section 23XWO, and that the issue of a summons would not ensure that appearance; or (b) that the offender might destroy evidence that might be obtained by carrying out the forensic procedure; or (c) that the issue of the warrant is otherwise justified.
Official source: Federal Register of Legislation
Search case law on this topic
See judgments from Australian courts and tribunals with a plain-English summary and legal holding.
Explore case law →