7/17/2020 CACV73/2020 JUNIOR POLICE OFFICERS’ ASSOCIATION OF THE HONG KONG POLICE FORCE AND ANOTHER v. ELECTORAL … It seems to us that all these Omissions ultimately come down to a complaint that the requirement of unrestricted public inspection of the registers is absolute without regard to the concerns for incursion to privacy interest and the potential seriousness of the consequence in a particular case. Since it is not for this Court to devise a regime and we are only concerned with the constitutionality of the current regime, it is not necessary to discuss the three aspects of Omissions (which are largely different facets of the same complaint) separately. 30. Mr Chan emphasized the systemic nature of his challenge. He did not advocate that the line should be drawn in a particular way. Instead, his complaint was that the existing system adopted the absolute position that the Linked Information of all registered electors have to be open to public inspection irrespective of how serious the consequences of giving unrestricted public access to the information would be to a particular elector. No exception is permitted and the only other option open to such elector is not to register, thereby forfeiting his or her right to vote. In short, counsel said this is not a case where a line has been drawn and there were hard cases irrespective how the line is drawn. He said it is a case where no line has been drawn. 31. Relying on the judgment of Lord Phillips of Worth Matravers PSC in R (F) v Justice Secretary [2011] 1 AC 331, at [41], Mr Chan submitted that the crucial issue in the application of the proportionality test in the present context is to ask to what extent the value served by public inspection of the register would be eroded if the inspection is subject to a limited discretion to provide for an option to restrict publication in cases where there is real concern on the part of a registered elector for risk to personal or family safety if information on his residential address is available to the public without restriction. Mr Chan said that Mr Leung for the respondents and Mr Paul Shieh SC (appearing with Mr Robert Pang SC and Ms Natalie So for HKJA) had failed to provide a satisfactory answer. 32. Mr Chan submitted that the Judge’s analysis of the Omissions and his proportionality assessment suffered from “five sets of critical errors”: https://legalref.judiciary.hk/lrs/common/search/search_result_detail_frame.jsp?DIS=128057&QS=%2B&TP=JU&ILAN=en 10/39