Do you want to talk us through that?

Absolutely.

And it's very well established that in the sphere of national security, there will be a margin of discretion that is very appreciable given to the government when making decisions than when evaluating whether those decisions should be overturned.

And the Court of Appeal underlines that the Home Secretary had special constitutional responsibilities and institutional competence when it comes to questions of national security.

In terms of what it said about the Divisional Court, essentially, it noted that the Divisional Court did talk about the latitude to be given to the Home Secretary, but the Court of Appeal said the Divisional Court addressed this only very briefly and materially understated the position.

The Divisional Court had said it must permit some latitude to the Home Secretary, given that she has both political and practical responsibility to secure public safety.

That, said the Court of Appeal, materially understates the position given the role and responsibilities and competence that the Home Secretary has in that sphere.

No, not really.