- 35 A - issue, national courts were required to afford the appellants under detention effective protection by adopting an intensive B A B review of whether such a right had been impugned, and the C courts were not precluded by any doctrine of deference from examining the proportionality of a measure taken to restrict D C D such a right; that the right to personal liberty was among the E most fundamental rights protected and the restrictions imposed by section 23 of the 2001 Act called for close F scrutiny. G satisfy H I (2) K L M N (3) the proportionality test and P amounted to G discrimination. H Where the requirement of fair trial is in issue: A, per Lord I J Where the question of open justice is raised. In Attorney General v BBC [2022] EWHC 380, the Attorney General sought an injunction to restrain BBC from broadcasting a programme on national security ground. The Attorney General argued that the hearing should proceed in private invoking, among others, national security. O F On the facts, they held that the measure did not Bingham at [39]. J E K L M N Chamberlain J, after noting that the appropriate extent of deference is context-specific, held at [45] that the decision in Begum was O P one which Parliament entrusted to the executive whereas the Q R question whether to permit a private hearing was one which involved a balancing exercise between the public interest in Q R open justice and the public interests relied upon in favour of S T privacy; and that the Civil Procedure Rules, for equally good constitutional reasons, allocates the performance of that balancing exercise to the court, and not the executive. S T He U U V V