The Independent Commission Against Corruption does not easily accept restrictions on its sweeping powers. Over the years it has fought tooth and nail in the courts to preserve them. So the organisation's decision to challenge last week's ruling concerning its raids on newspaper offices comes as no surprise.
As the ICAC was quick to point out, the appeal will give the higher courts an opportunity to clarify this area of the law. But its reasons for proceeding with the case clearly go beyond a selfless desire to clear up perceived legal ambiguities. This is a bid to ensure its powers to search for and seize material from journalists remain as wide and unfettered as possible.
Last week, Mr Justice Michael Hartmann ruled that the ICAC was 'wrong in fact and law' to seek search warrants for raids on seven newspapers, including the South China Morning Post.
In a detailed judgment he ruled that the anti-graft body had improperly used intrusive methods that impinged upon press freedom. It had opted to make immediate use of draconian search and seizure powers that were only to be employed as a last resort.
The ruling was widely welcomed in Hong Kong. The judge emphasised the importance of protecting press freedom and set out guidelines - based on legal precedents - for future investigations.
But the ICAC questions what appear to be perfectly reasonable restrictions on its powers. Indeed, it does not believe the courts should be able to step in and revoke search warrants, even if the decision to issue them was 'wrong in law'.
This is one of the arguments put forward by the organisation - and it is expected to feature in the appeal. It is dressed up in legal jargon and Latin terminology. The question is technical in the extreme and involves tortuous interpretation of various rules of the High Court.