MS: The huge weight of public interest in disclosing ongoing crimes of rendition, torture, -- even if that disclosure was deliberate, which it wasn't -- it would have resulted in the exposure of the names of people involved in criminal behaviour. The court would have said that people are criminals behaviour. And all of this would play into a balancing act, an exercise, in which the judge would be required to engage in the evaluation -- but this is entirely absent from the DJ's decision.

MS: One could simply complain that the DJ failed to undertake Art 10 analysis. And she did. It’s a glaring legal error. Had the judge undertaken the exercise of balance, she would have inevitably come to the same conclusion.