- 31 A B 54. - That is what the Government did in the present case. The Chief Executive first by the Certificate made the assessment that the 4 Acts A B involve national security as they pose national security risks and are C D contrary to the interests of national security. The executive next assessed and decided that the measure of a civil injunction in aid of the criminal law C D would be of utility and indeed necessary to reduce or eliminate the risks E E posed to national security by the 4 Acts. F F 55. G H The same two-step approach was also adopted by the UK Government in A v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2005] 2 AC 68. There, following large scale terrorist attacks in the USA on 11 G H September 2001, the UK Government concluded that there was a public I J emergency threatening the life of the nation within the meaning of article 15 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms. That formed the assessment at the first step. K L I J Accordingly, it made the Human Rights Act 1998 (Designated Derogation) Order 2001, designating the UK’s proposed derogation, under article 15, from the right K L to personal liberty guaranteed by article 5(1) of the Convention, as M N scheduled to the Human Rights Act 1998, and, by section 23 of the Anti-terrorism, Crime and Security Act 2001, provided for the detention of M N non-nationals if the Home Secretary believed that their presence in the O P United Kingdom was a risk to national security and he suspected that they were terrorists who, for the time being, could not be deported because of O P fears for their safety or other practical considerations. The promulgation Q of the measure was made at the second step. R R 56. S T Q As both the assessment made at the first step and the counter-measure devised at the second step are matters of judgment and policy entrusted to the executive, the court, in adjudicating disputes arising S T from or involving them, will give deference to the executive’s decision in U U V V