Judgment Approved by the court for handing down. Miranda v SSHD possession, custody or power and to which the application relates... (4) For the purposes of this paragraph— (a) an order may specify a person only if he appears to the Circuit judge or the District Judge (Magistrates’ Courts) to have in his possession, custody or power any of the material to which the application relates... 6(1) A Circuit judge or a District Judge (Magistrates’ Courts) may grant an application under paragraph 5 if satisfied— (a) that the material to which the application relates consists of or includes excluded material or special procedure material... (c) that the conditions in sub-paragraphs (2) and (3) are satisfied in respect of that material. (2) The first condition is that— (a) the order is sought for the purposes of a terrorist investigation, and (b) there are reasonable grounds for believing that the material is likely to be of substantial value, whether by itself or together with other material, to a terrorist investigation... 10(1) An order of a Circuit judge or a District Judge (Magistrates’ Courts) under paragraph 5 shall have effect as if it were an order of the Crown Court... 13(1) A constable may apply to a Circuit judge or a District Judge (Magistrates’ Courts) for an order under this paragraph requiring any person specified in the order to provide an explanation of any material— ….... (b) produced or made available to a constable under paragraph 5. 86. By para 4 of Schedule 5 “excluded material” has the meaning given by section 11, and “special procedure material” has the meaning given by section 14 of PACE. Thus “excluded material” includes “journalistic material” (viz. “material acquired or created for the purposes of journalism”) held in confidence (section 11(1)(c) read with section 13(1)). “Special procedure material” includes “journalistic material, other than excluded material” (section 14(1)(b)). 87. As I have said, the fourth ground of appeal is a sub-set of the third ground. Mr Ryder submits that the use of Schedule 7 was disproportionate in the present case (involving