Judgment Approved by the court for handing down. Miranda v SSHD terrorists. My understanding of the technology from material in the public domain is that it enables security and intelligence services to monitor email traffic. Accordingly, I considered that if nothing was done to try to prevent further damaging disclosures which could directly benefit terrorists, the MPS and I personally would be failing in our obligation to prevent the loss of life, safeguard the public to [sic] prevent and detect crime. For all these reasons I considered that the use of a Schedule 7 stop was proportionate.” 72. Mr Miranda challenged the evidence that there was a genuine belief that his activity could endanger life or facilitate terrorist attacks. Both he and Mr Greenwald asserted in their witness statements that the defendants were well aware that Mr Miranda’s possession of the material that was seized was in connection with journalism, not terrorism. 73. Laws LJ rejected the suggestion that the defendants did not believe that Mr Miranda’s possession of the material presented any real danger to national security or risk of loss of life. He said at para 56 that there was “no perceptible foundation for such a suggestion”. He added that Mr Miranda’s evidence did not engage with the defendants’ evidence as to the substance of the threat posed by Mr Miranda’s possession of the material. The nearest Mr Greenwald came to an engagement with the defendants’ evidence as to the actual or potential damaging effects of the dissemination of material seized from Mr Miranda was in the following paragraphs of his witness statement: “51. It is absurd to suggest that because the material, if it ever fell into the hands of terrorists could in theory be used for terrorist purposes, then there is a justification for using counterterrorist measures to take that material from responsible journalists publishing material through respected international media organisations (original emphasis). 52. Nowhere in their evidence do the defendants’ witnesses positively indicate that any disclosure has actually threatened or endangered life or any specific operation. In my view, this is not surprising, given the care we took not to create such a risk.” Responsible journalism 74. Mr Miranda and Mr Greenwald placed much weight on the need to have regard to the importance of “responsible journalism” as a factor when weighing the competing interests in this case. Laws LJ dealt with this issue at para 58: “Thirdly, Mr Greenwald’s account (paragraph 33) of the “many ingredients to the sensible reporting of very sensitive information” is insubstantial; or rather, mysterious – the reader is left in the dark as to how it is that “highly experienced journalists and legal experts” (paragraph 33(1)) or “[e]xperienced editors and reporters” (33(2)) are able to know what may and what may not be published without endangering