[25] See Section 11 of the Act as read with the Criminal Law Codification and Reform Act (Standard Scale of Fines) Notice, 2019 Statutory instrument 209 of 2019 dated 23 rd September 2019 [26] See Sections 14 and 15 of the Act as read with the (Standard Scale of Fines) Notice, 2019 above [27] See Sections 16 (1) and (2) of the Act [28] See Section 16 (3) of the Act [29] See Section 17 of the Act [30] See Section 18 of the Act [31] See Section 19 of the Act [32] See Section 20 of the Act [33] https://www.homeaffairs.gov.au/about-us/our-portfolios/national-security/lawful-accesstelecommunications/telecommunications-interception-and-surveillance Accessed 4th September 2019 [34] [53] The applicant seeks the following declaration: "It is declared that: (a) RICA, including sections 16(7), 17(6), 18(3)(a), 19(6), 20(6), 21(6) and 22(7) thereof, is inconsistent with the Constitution and accordingly invalid to the extent that it fails to prescribe procedure for notifying the subject of the interception; (b) The declaration of invalidity is suspended for two years to allow Parliament to cure the defect; and (c) Pending the enactment of legislation to cure the defect, RICA shall be deemed to read to include the following additional sections 16(11) and (12): (11) The applicant that obtained the interception direction shall, within 90 days of its expiry, notify in writing the person who was the subject of the interception and shall certify to the designated judge that the person has been so notified. (12) The designated judge may in exceptional circumstances and on written application made before the expiry of the 90 day period referred to in sub-section (11), direct that the obligation referred to in sub-section (11) is postponed for a further appropriate period, which period shall not exceed 180 days."' [54] Immediate interim relief is self-evidently appropriate. Save with one qualification, in my view, the proposed interim text is appropriate. The cruel fact must be recognised that a deferral of notice in de facto perpetuity is sometimes legitimate. That is, of course, an extreme position. For that reason I would add a proposed (13). That text would go hand in hand with a tail to proposed subsection (12) to read:" ....exceed 180 days at a time." The text of (13) would read:"In the event that orders of deferral of notification, in total, amount to three years after surveillance has ended, the application for any further deferral shall be placed before a panel of three designated judges for consideration henceforth, and such panel, as constituted from time to time, by a majority if necessary, shall decide on whether annual deferrals from that moment forward should be ordered." Per Sunderland J in Amabhungane Centre for Investigative Journalism NPC & Anor. V Minister of Justice and Correctional Services and 10 Ors ( as yet unreported judgement of the Gauteng Local Division per Sutherland J and handed down on 16th September 2019) [35] At paragraph [71] of the judgment in Amabhungane Centre for Investigative Journalism NPC & Anor above [36] At paragraph [82] of the judgment in Amabhungane Centre for Investigative Journalism NPC & Anor above [37] At paragraph [108] of the judgment in Amabhungane Centre for Investigative Journalism NPC & Anor above [38] See Preamble to Interception of Communications Act [Chapter 15:08] which states as follows: