With the leave of the court, the Applicant seeks to challenge, by way of judicial review, the decision of the Principal Magistrate Mr Peter Law (“Magistrate”) made on 25 April 2022 (“Decision”) refusing her application to lift reporting restrictions for committal proceedings pursuant to s87A(2) of the Magistrates Ordinance (Cap 227) (“MO”). By the direction of the court, the Secretary for Justice (“SJ”) is added as the Respondent of this judicial review. On 2 August 2022, the Court of First Instance gives judgment allowing the judicial review of the Applicant. The Court of First Instance held: 1. The issues in this judicial review, which concern the true interpretation of s87A(2) of the MO, are narrow, namely (i) whether the Magistrate was under a mandatory duty to lift reporting restrictions imposed by s87A(1) on committal proceedings at the instance of an accused; and (ii) if the Magistrate had a discretion in the aforesaid matter, whether he had taken into irrelevant considerations or ignored relevant considerations in coming to the Decision. 2. In gist, the Applicant submits that s87A means what it says, to the effect that reporting restrictions must be lifted if an application is made pursuant to subsection (2) requiring that the default position under subsection (1) of the section should no longer apply. As such, the Magistrate erred in supposing that a discretion existed. It is further submitted that even if such a discretion existed, the Magistrate’s reasoning was totally in opposition to the principles of Open Justice that govern the exercise of judicial power in the context of restricting access to, or reporting of, court proceedings. 3. On the other hand, SJ submits that purposively and properly construed and having regard to the ultimate aim of having a fair trial, an examining magistrate presiding over committal proceedings has a discretion under s87A(2) whether or not to lift reporting restrictions imposed by s87A(1). Furthermore, it is submitted that the Magistrate had properly exercised his discretion in the matter. 4. Having considered submissions of counsel and having regard to the existence of other measures available for the protection of witnesses, the court rejects SJ’s contention that the lifting of reporting restrictions under s87A(2) would frustrate the ultimate aim of doing justice. Besides, having regard to the legislative background of the provisions in the MO governing committal proceedings; the relevant articles in the Basic Law, the Bill of Rights and the National Security Law; and also the case authorities, the court can find no cogent or convincing reasons that the provisions in s87A(2), MO should bear the meaning as contended by SJ. To the contrary, a purposive and contextual interpretation and a consideration of the case law point in unison to the conclusion that s87A(2) means what it says in that the magistrate has no discretion but to lift the reporting restrictions at the instance of the accused. It follows that the Decision is ultra vires in that the Magistrate purported to exercise a discretion which did not exist. 5. Furthermore, even assuming that such a discretion did exist, based on BOR 10, the court is inclined to the view that a magistrate presiding over committal proceedings should not refuse to accede to an application made by an accused pursuant to s87A(2) unless such refusal is “strictly necessary” in the interests of justice. On that basis, the Decision would still be flawed in that it entails a failure to take into account relevant considerations, as a result of which it has not been shown that the reporting restrictions were “strictly necessary” in the circumstances. 6. That said, the court restrains from expressing any conclusive views as to whether s87A(2) is so wide as to violate the fair trial right (provided for in the BOR and entrenched by the BL) of the co-accused. This is because the issue does not arise in the present case.