7/17/2020 CACV73/2020 JUNIOR POLICE OFFICERS’ ASSOCIATION OF THE HONG KONG POLICE FORCE AND ANOTHER v. ELECTORAL … (1) Set 1: devaluing the fundamental BOR 14 and BL 26 rights engaged and downplaying the extent of systemic encroachment and severity of the Impugned Provisions. (2) Set 2: failing to evaluate respondents’ generalized case on the Linked Information provision specifically against the Omissions. No matter what the general need or benefits of public access to the Linked Information, there is no justification why it is necessary, fair and proportionate to have an absolute unrestricted public access to the Linked Information with the Omissions. (3) Set 3: failing to identify from the evidence any sufficient causal contribution of the Linked Information towards the Transparent Elections and Electioneering Aims, and the extent of any such benefits (so as to determine their proportionality against the degree of interference with fundamental rights). (4) Set 4: failing to recognize other clear marks of disproportionality. (5) Set 5: errors as to the proper standard of review and the burden of justification. Like the different aspects of the Omissions, these are different facets of the challenge to the proportionality analysis by the Judge. We do not think it is Mr Chan’s case that if he succeeds on any single facet, that by itself would be sufficient to upset the ultimate conclusion reached by the Judge. They should all be considered together in the overall exercise of proportionality assessment. In our judgment, instead of addressing these different angles separately, it is more appropriate to touch upon the various facets in the course of an overall examination of proportionality. This will be the course we adopt below. The Nature of the Infringement of BOR 14 and BL 26 Rights 33. BOR 14 provides: https://legalref.judiciary.hk/lrs/common/search/search_result_detail_frame.jsp?DIS=128057&QS=%2B&TP=JU&ILAN=en 11/39