1. The police seized 2 mobile phones from the plaintiff in a search of his residence in 2020. The plaintiff commenced proceedings to have the seized materials returned to him. One of his claims was that the seized materials contained journalistic material. As a result, the phones were ordered to be sealed by the judge, pending determination of the plaintiff’s claims. 2. In 2022, the police obtained from a designated magistrate a warrant under the Implementation Rules for Article 43 of the Law of the People’s Republic of China on Safeguarding National Security in the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region (the Rules). This warrant authorized the searching of the digital contents in the phones seized by the police, including those subject to the claim on journalistic material, but it provided that the phones could only be unsealed by a further order of the judge. 3. To give effect to the warrant, the police applied to the judge by summons for the phones’ contents to be made available. In opposition, the plaintiff applied for leave for judicial review against the validity of the warrant, on the ground that the term “specified evidence” (as defined in section 1 of Schedule 1 of the Rules) does not cover journalistic material. The judge dismissed the plaintiff’s leave application and allowed the summons by the police. The plaintiff appealed both decisions to the Court of Appeal. 4. The Court of Appeal observed that the proper context in which the term “specified evidence” is to be interpreted is as follows:- (1) the Rules authorize a warrant to be issued by a magistrate for a police officer to search “specified evidence”; and “specified evidence” is defined to mean “anything that is or contains, or that is likely to be or contain, evidence of an offence endangering national security” (section 1 of Schedule 1); (2) the Rules are delegated legislation made pursuant to The Law of the People’s Republic of China on Safeguarding National Security in the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region (NSL). One primary objective of the NSL is to effectively suppress, prevent and punish offences and acts endangering national security. The legislative purpose of the Rules must be consistent with the NSL, and a proper interpretation of “specified evidence” must give effect to that purpose; (3) on the other hand, the NSL requires the protection of fundamental rights (NSL Art.4). Journalistic material concerns the freedom of the press, which is a facet of freedom of expression, and is protected as a fundamental right under the Basic Law and the Hong Kong Bill of Rights Ordinance. The immense importance of journalistic material to freedom of the press is central to the construction of “specified evidence”; (4) the NSL also emphasizes adherence to the principle of the rule of law (NSL Art.5). This requires that if a statute does not expressly or by necessary implication override or restrict fundamental rights, it will not be construed as doing so; (5) the NSL is intended to operate in tandem with the laws of the HKSAR, seeking convergence, compatibility and complementarity with local laws (subject to NSL Art.62 which gives priority to NSL in case of inconsistency). This indicates that the Rules and local laws on search are to work as a coherent whole, and consequently local laws powerfully informs the construction of “specified evidence” in the Rules; (6) in exercising the discretion of issuing a warrant under the Rules, a magistrate is to be guided by the primary objective of the NSL, the legislative purpose of the Rules, the requirements for the protection of the freedom of the press, adherence to the principle of the rule of law, and local laws on search, as set out above. 5. As for local laws, the Court observed that:- (1) under the common law, in dealing with a search warrant for journalistic material, the court performs the judicial gatekeeping role of guarding against unlawful and arbitrary interference with fundamental rights that a search warrant might entail, balancing the competing public interests in protecting such material on the one hand, and crime prevention and law enforcement objectives on the other hand; (2) in addition, search and seizure of journalistic material under statutory provisions is generally subjected to the regime in Part XII of the Interpretation and General Clauses Ordinance (Cap 1). Under this regime, the court is required to look at all the circumstances of the case, and to consider whether it would be in the public interest that the seized material should be made use of for the purpose of the relevant investigation. Public interest is relevant at both the issue and execution stages of the warrant. This regime does not have the effect of abrogating the common law, and therefore it is not the only lawful regime to address claims based on journalistic material; (3) in performing its judicial gatekeeping role, the court has to balance the public interest in deciding whether to issue the warrant with or without conditions, and may set aside or vary the warrant based on public interest upon the application by the person affected by it. 6. Based on these observations, and referring to well established local and overseas case law, the Court reiterated that journalistic material is not immune from search and seizure for the purpose of criminal investigation. The Court further held that:- (1) despite its importance to the freedom of the press, the protection afforded to journalistic material is not absolute. Although always subject to the protection and procedural safeguards based on public interest and vigilant judicial scrutiny, it is not immune from search and seizure in investigation of any criminal offence, and the same must be true for offences endangering national security as a matter of principle; (2) to serve the legislative purpose of furthering the primary objective of the NSL to effectively suppress, prevent and punish offences endangering national security, the police must be able to carry out effective search on anything, including journalistic material, that contains or is likely to contain evidence of an offence endangering national security. Were such material excluded from the definition of “specified evidence”, it would unduly limit the scope and hence reduce the effectiveness of police investigation. That would not be conducive to the said legislative purpose; (3) such an interpretation does not diminish the protection afforded to the freedom of the press by local laws or violate the principle of legality. For the Rules operate in tandem with local laws on search as a coherent whole. The same protection and safeguards based on public interest for journalistic material under local laws equally apply to a warrant under the Rules. The magistrate will perform the same judicial gatekeeping role in exercising his discretion under the Rules as he would under local laws, to ensure that the search and seizure of journalistic material is justified in the public interest. 7. The Court of Appeal therefore dismissed the plaintiff’s appeals, holding that “specified evidence” as defined in the Rules, in its proper context and as borne out by its natural and ordinary language, covers journalistic material.