Judgment Approved by the court for handing down. Miranda v SSHD intelligence material which rightly make it very difficult to challenge such an assessment in a court of law. 83. I would add that, when conducting the balancing exercise, the court should also have regard to the harm that might be caused to the community if the risk does materialise. The greater the potential harm, the greater the weight that should be accorded to the community interests. The potential harm in this case was very substantial. 84. In conclusion, I substantially agree with what Laws LJ said at paras 72 and 73 of his judgment. I approach the issue on the footing that the Schedule 7 stop was an interference with press freedom. But the compelling national security interests clearly outweighed Mr Miranda’s article 10 rights on the facts of this case. In reaching this conclusion, I also bear in mind the considerable deference that the court should accord to a decision to invoke the Schedule 7 power in a case of this kind. It follows that, subject to the point raised by the fourth ground of appeal, the decision to exercise the power was proportionate on the facts of this case. THE FOURTH GROUND OF APPEAL: SCHEDULE 5 85. Schedule 5 provides so far as material: “1(1) A constable may apply to a justice of the peace for the issue of a warrant under this paragraph for the purposes of a terrorist investigation. (2) A warrant under this paragraph shall authorise any constable— (a) to enter premises mentioned in sub-paragraph (2A) [whose details are not material], (b) to search the premises and any person found there, and (c) to seize and retain any relevant material which is found on a search under paragraph (b). ... 5(1) A constable may apply to a Circuit judge or a District Judge (Magistrates’ Courts) for an order under this paragraph for the purposes of a terrorist investigation. ” (2) An application for an order shall relate to particular material, or material of a particular description, which consists of or includes excluded material or special procedure material. (3) An order under this paragraph may require a specified person— (a) to produce to a constable within a specified period for seizure and retention any material which he has in his