- 12 A B - Finally, the Judge observed that, as the Secretary recognized, 17. the right to freedom of expression is engaged. He referred to the “chilling A B effects” of the injunction, that is, innocent parties not meant to be targeted C D by the injunction, and conducting their lives as reasonable (not unduly sensitive) lay persons, feel nonetheless dissuaded or compelled to refrain C D from lawful and constitutionally protected conduct that they would E F otherwise wish to pursue, for fear of bearing the severe consequences of breach of the injunction if they are mistaken as to the precise scope of legal prohibition. G H E F After analysis, he was satisfied that the injunction met the four-stage proportionality test laid down in Hysan Development Co Ltd v Town Planning Board (2016) 19 HKCFAR 372.21 He would have granted G H the injunction had he been satisfied that it was of real utility and there I I existed no conflict with the criminal law. J K J C. MAIN ISSUES K This appeal raises three main issues: 18. L L (1) M What should be the court’s approach to an application for an M injunction in aid of the criminal law for safeguarding national N security? In particular, what is the interplay between the court’s duty under NSL 3 and NSL 8 and the exercise of its O power under section 21L of the HCO? N O 22 P P (2) Q What is the role of the court where the executive has made an Q assessment of national security in the predictive exercise of R the likely utility of an injunction to prevent activities endangering national security? S T V S T 21 U Specifically, what weight R 22 Decision, [82] - [83]. Grounds 1 and 2 of the grounds of appeal. U V