- 10 A B - The Judge next noted that the test for an injunction in aid of 13. the criminal law is one of necessity or utility. It must be shown that absent A B the injunction the Defendant’s illegal conduct could not be effectively C D restrained. The court must consider (1) whether it would actually provide greater deterrence than what the criminal law already imposed; and (2) the ease of enforcement against the law-breakers.11 E F C D With that in mind, the Judge compared the severity of criminal penalties and sanctions for contempt, querying if the targeted act was only lightly penalised under E F criminal law, it might seem wrong for the civil court to grant injunctions G H breaches of which might attract unlimited sanctions, thus doing what the legislature had not done; and if the criminal sanction was far more severe G H than what could be expected in contempt proceedings, like those imposed I J K by NSL 21, whether there was any utility in granting the injunction and whether it was correct as a matter of principle for the court to pass judgment on what was effectively a serious criminal offence, without the procedural safeguards of the criminal justice system. 12 L M N O I J K L After careful consideration, the Judge was unable to see how 14. an injunction could assist the enforcement of the criminal law. He accepted that whether the 4 Acts endanger national security would best be left to the executive who might assess the risks with sensitive intelligence M N O not available to the court. However, on the utility of the injunction, the P Q court was in a proper position to make a judgment on it based on the evidence. After referring to the Secretary’s case on utility, the Judge P Q observed that the evidence contained little in terms of how the injunction R S T would reduce the prevalence of the Song; that it was unlikely for entrenched offenders to be deterred by an additional injunction; 13 and that 11 12 U V 13 R S T Decision, [51]. Decision, [52]. Decision, [57]. U V