- 43 A B - Under both the Basic Law and the NSL, the court has the duty 75. to ensure that the injunction does not unjustifiably interfere with that right. A B NSL 4 provides that fundamental rights guaranteed under the Basic Law C D and the Hong Kong Bill of Rights Ordinance shall be protected in accordance with the law. Its legislative intent is to apply the C D constitutional principles developed at common law under BL 39 and BOR E F 16 on restricting fundamental rights for the protection of national security, such as legality and proportionality tests, to determine if any measure E F engaging fundamental rights is justified: HKSAR v Tam Tak Chi [2024] G H HKCA 231, at [103] - [111]; see also R (Lord Carlile of Berriew and others) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2015] AC 945, per G H Lord Sumption JSC at [34]. I J K L M I Thus, as a general proposition, if an injunction in aid of the 76. criminal law for safeguarding national security engages a fundamental right, the court must scrutinize it to see if it is constitutionally justified. While the exercise depends on the actual circumstances, three obvious general points can be made: J K L M N (1) The terms of the injunction should be clear and certain. N O (2) Its scope should not be wider than that of the criminal law. O (3) It is not an open-end exercise testing the injunction against P every fundamental right listed in the Basic Law and the BOR Q P Q on a hypothetical basis. The court only needs to consider the R fundamental right said to be engaged on the facts of the case. S T R S 77. The Judge found that subject to utility, the injunction satisfied the proportionality test. We disagree with his view on utility but T U U V V