- 26 A B 42. - Further, NSL 8 specifically mandates the court to apply the NSL and all local laws for prevention, suppression and punishment of A B offences endangering national security as follows: C C “In order to safeguard national security effectively, the … judicial authorities of the [HKSAR] shall fully enforce [the NSL] and the laws in force in the Region concerning the prevention of, suppression of, and imposition of punishment for acts and activities endangering national security.” D E D E F F 43. G H In making that mandate, the legislative intent of NSL 8 is clear. The NSL and all existing local laws, including both criminal law and civil law, work in tandem to safeguard national security. The criminal G H law alone, including prosecution of offences endangering national security I J under the NSL or local criminal laws such as those in the present case, NSL 21 or sections 9 and 10 of the Crimes Ordinance, is not adequate to achieve I J the immensely important public interest of safeguarding national security. K L M N O P Q Put differently, the criminal law including prosecution is not intended to be the only means of enforcement for safeguarding national security. Where necessary and appropriate, the civil law must come to aid. 44. Most relevantly, the court under the mandate of NSL 8 must fully enforce the equitable jurisprudence in granting injunctions in aid of the criminal law for safeguarding national security because such injunctions, as seen, being preventive in nature, pursue the aim of preventing acts or activities endangering national security. This should K L M N O P Q be firmly borne in mind when considering the court’s approach to R applications like the present. S S 45. T U V R The general principles for injunctions in aid of the criminal law, which originate from non-national security contexts, when applied for safeguarding national security, are necessarily subject to the above T U V