- 13 A - should the court accord to the executive’s assessment that unless the injunction is granted, the acts endangering national B A B security will continue, when the national security assessment C is within the executive’s purview? Can the court come to its own view which may differ from the executive’s D C D assessment?23 E E (3) F Are there real and substantial conflicts between contempt F proceedings and criminal proceedings such that the injunction G ought to be refused?24 H G H The answers to these issues will become apparent in the discussion in I I Part D. J J PROPER APPROACH D. K K 19. Section 21L(1) of the HCO provides: L L “The Court of First Instance may by order (whether interlocutory or final) grant an injunction … in all cases in which it appears to the Court of First Instance to be just or convenient to do so.” M N O As section 21L(1) confirms and restates the court’s jurisdiction to grant M N O injunctions in equity, the present application in substance invokes the P Q court’s equitable jurisdiction to grant injunctions in aid of the criminal law, specifically the NSL and the NAO, for the purpose of safeguarding national security in the HKSAR. R 23 24 T U V Q Since it is the first application of its kind, it falls R S P Ground 3 of the grounds of appeal. Ground 5 of the grounds of appeal. Ground 4 complains that the Judge failed to take into account relevant considerations and took into account irrelevant considerations. Ground 6 complains that the Judge failed to giving separate consideration to the grant of the injunction in relation to restraining insult to the national anthem by misrepresenting the Song as the national anthem. For reasons which will become apparent, it is not necessary to deal with Grounds 4 or 6 separately. S T U V