Before deciding an application for a surveillance warrant, the judge must, in particular, and being mindful of the highly intrusive nature of using a surveillance device, consider the following—
(a) the nature and seriousness of the corruption;
(b) the likely extent of interference with the privacy of—(i) the relevant person; or(ii) any other occupant of the relevant place;if the warrant is issued;
(c) the extent to which issuing the warrant would help prevent, detect, or provide evidence of the commission of, the corruption;
(d) the benefits derived from the issue of any previous surveillance warrants in relation to the relevant person or the relevant place;
(e) the extent to which officers investigating the corruption have used or can use conventional ways of investigation;
(f) how much the use of conventional ways of investigation would be likely to help in the investigation of the corruption;
(g) how much the use of conventional ways of investigation would prejudice the investigation of the corruption because of delay or for another reason;
(h) any submissions made by a monitor.