- 36 A - further noted at [46] that in striking the balance, the court should give appropriate (and considerable) respect to properly B A B reasoned national security assessments but the court must also C be astute to consider and probe such assessment with care. On the facts, he was not satisfied that the Attorney General D C D had discharged the burden of establishing by clear and cogent E evidence that the derogation from the principle of open justice F G H 62. E was required or justified. F In so performing its judicial role, the court does not cross the G constitutional boundary and trespass into the province of national security H exclusively entrusted to the executive. Nor does it attempt to substitute I J its view over the executive’s for what national security interests best require. On the contrary, the court is very much aware of the heavy I J burden resting on the Government to protect national security and all who K L live in the HKSAR. The court is also acutely conscious that the Government alone is able to evaluate and decide what counter-measures K L are needed and what steps will suffice. The court is neither equipped to M N make such decisions nor charged with that onerous responsibility. the court must give appropriate deference to the executive as primary decision maker. O P Hence M N But at the same time, when constitutional or legal issues arise, under the constitutional design of the Region, it is the function of the court, and not the executive, to resolve them: see A, per Lord Nicholls at O P [79] - [80]; per Lord Bingham at [29]. Q R Q 63. Here, the issue is whether an injunction is necessary to aid the criminal law in addressing the national security risks. S T R Since an injunction is a form of judicial remedy which only the court can grant, that issue does not lie within the exclusive province of the executive. Rather, it is S T eminently a legal question for the court, and the court alone, to decide. U U V V