- 28 A B - Under this necessity test, mere infringement of the criminal 48. law is not enough because infringement alone does not necessarily mean A B that the criminal law is inadequate to achieve its public interest purpose of C D safeguarding national security. On the other hand, it does not require proof of certainty that nothing short of the injunction would achieve the C D purpose or that the injunction would provide greater deterrence than what E F the criminal law has already provided, as the Judge decided. high a threshold for the injunction, as a supplementary tool to complement the criminal law, to meet. G H That is too E F Further, it may unduly fetter the court’s power to grant the injunction in cases when justice and convenience clearly so warrant, contrary to the mandate in the NSL that the equitable jurisdiction G H to grant injunctions should be applied in full for safeguarding national I I security. J K L M N O J Referring to NSL 3 and NSL 8, Mr Benjamin Yu, SC, for the 49. Secretary, 31 submits that the overall approach is to grant the injunction unless the court considers that it would not have any effect in preventing, suppressing or punishing the act or activity endangering national security in question. Put another way, counsel argues, insofar as the court accepts that the injunction may contribute in some way towards preventing, suppressing or punishing the act or activity endangering national security, K L M N O in order to discharge its duty to fully enforce the law in discharge of its P Q constitutional duty to safeguard national security, the injunction ought to be granted. That approach focuses solely on utility. It does not ask the P Q central question if it is necessary to invoke the assistance of the injunction, R S thereby missing the fundamental point that it is a supplementary tool to complement the criminal law in achieving its public interest purpose of safeguarding national security. T U V R S Moreover, it appears to be a wholesale T 31 Together with Mr Jenkin Suen SC. U V