MADLANGA J interception device to facilitate interceptions conducted in terms of an interception direction issued under section 16. [9] In terms of section 23 applications may be made orally to a designated Judge for the issuing of the directions envisaged in sections 16 to 18 and 21 and an entry warrant envisaged in section 22. An oral application may be made where – because of urgency or exceptional circumstances – it is not reasonably practicable to apply in writing.23 In terms of section 23(5) directions and entry warrants must be in writing. They too may be oral if that be dictated by urgency or exceptional circumstances.24 [10] Surveillance under these sections, i.e. 16 to 18 and 20 to 23, covers almost the entire spectrum of state surveillance.25 As shown by this discussion, that wide spectrum involves a designated Judge. What remains is – by comparison – a minuscule aspect provided for in section 19. [11] Although directions under section 19 are not issued by a designated Judge, at its centre this section also has a Judicial Officer. This section empowers a High Court Judge, Regional Court Magistrate or Magistrate to issue archived communication-related directions. This differs from section 18 in that it applies where only archived communication-related directions are sought. On the other hand, section 18 authorises combined directions where the combinations include archived communication-related directions. And in the case of section 18, the issuer is a designated Judge, not the Judicial Officers mentioned in section 19. [12] All surveillance under the various forms of directions is in relation to serious offences; actual or potential threats to the public health or safety, national security or compelling national economic interests of the Republic; organised crime or terrorism; 23 Section 23(4)(iii). 24 Section 23(7). 25 This, of course, is with the exception of interceptions to prevent bodily injury or determine a location in an emergency, under sections 7 and 8 respectively. 14