Before including such a requirement in a sexual harm prevention order, the court must receive evidence about its suitability and enforceability from—
the individual to be specified under subsection (1), if an individual is to be specified;
an individual representing the organisation to be specified under subsection (1), if an organisation is to be specified.
Subsections (1) and (2) do not apply in relation to electronic monitoring requirements (see instead section 103FA(5) and (6)).
It is the duty of a person specified under subsection (1)—
to make any necessary arrangements in connection with the requirements for which the person has responsibility ("the relevant requirements");
to promote the defendant's compliance with the relevant requirements;
if the person considers that—
the defendant has complied with all the relevant requirements, or
the defendant has failed to comply with a relevant requirement,
to inform the appropriate chief officer of police.
In subsection (4)(c) the "appropriate chief officer of police means—
the chief officer of police for the police area in which it appears to the person specified under subsection (1) that the defendant resides, or
if it appears to that person that the defendant resides in more than one police area, whichever of the chief officers of police of those areas the person thinks it is most appropriate to inform.