Judgment Approved by the court for handing down. Miranda v SSHD taken from Mr Miranda contained approximately 58,000 highly classified UK intelligence documents. At para 15 of his second witness statement, Mr Robbins said: “…..I can say with confidence that the material seized is highly likely to describe techniques that have been crucial in lifesaving counter-terrorism operations, the prevention and detection of serious crime, and other intelligence activities vital to the security of the UK. The compromise of these methods would do serious damage to UK national security, and ultimately put lives at risk. Following the article jointly published by the Guardian, New York Times and ProPublica on 5 September, for example, the US Office of the Director of National Intelligence said on the following day that the article revealed ‘specific and classified details about how we [ie, the US] conduct this critical activity’, and that it provided a ‘roadmap to our adversaries’ about surveillance issues.” 69. Laws LJ placed particular weight on the following sentence in para 19 of Mr Robbins’s first statement: “It is known that contained in the seized material are [sic] personal information that would allow staff to be identified, including those deployed overseas.” 70. Det Supt Caroline Goode of the Metropolitan Police attached to SO 15 described her concerns arising from the theft of the 58,000 documents. At para 15 of her witness statement, she said: “The material needs to be examined as a matter of urgency to identify the nature of the material stolen in order to enable the MPS to mitigate the risks posed by the theft, the unlawful possession and disclosure of this material. For example, should the identity of individuals working for HMG be revealed their lives and the lives of their families could be directly at risk. Similarly should details of ongoing/historic operations and/or methodology be revealed the operation itself could be rendered ineffective. This will consequently put the lives of the general public at risk as we would be less able to counter the threat from terrorism. If the MPS was able to identify what identities and information are contained within the material we would be able to mitigate the risk posed to those individuals, those operations and the general public at large by putting appropriate measures in place.” 71. At para 52 of his second witness statement, Det Supt Stokley said: “I believed that the information in [the claimant’s] possession could potentially compromise the UK’s ability to monitor terrorist networks, posing a threat to the safety of the public... In particular, I considered that the release of information about PRISM technology into the public domain was of use to