- 37 A B - The court will have to make its own judgment guided by the approach and the principles as expounded in this judgment, while giving considerable deference to the executive’s decision to invoke the court’s jurisdiction. C D A B In answering the question, the court no doubt bears firmly in mind its constitutional duty to safeguard national security and the mandate in the C D NSL to deploy the equitable jurisdiction to grant injunctions in full to E E safeguard national security. F F D2.3 Concerns of potential unfairness in contempt proceedings G 64. H I J The third aspect of the injunction also arises from how it is going to work in tandem with the NSL for safeguarding national security. 65. As noted, cautions had been expressed in the authorities on perceived unfairness arising from contempt proceedings and criminal proceedings involving the same facts.34 K L G H I J This explains why the court must exercise great caution before granting the injunction. Echoing those cautions and accepting the submissions of Mr Abraham Chan SC, amicus K L curiae,35 the Judge concluded that there are conflicts and inconsistencies M N O P between the injunction and the NSL regime that the former would not operate coherently with the latter. With respect, and despite Mr Chan’s submissions to the contrary, we have difficulty in agreeing with the Judge. 66. As a general proposition, the perceived unfairness is inherent in any injunction granted in aid of the criminal law. Q R S P Otherwise, no such injunction could ever be Q R T 34 V O S T U N However, that alone would not render the contempt proceedings incompatible or incoherent with the criminal regime. M 35 See [26(1)] above. Leading Mr Martin Ho. U V