7/17/2020 CACV73/2020 JUNIOR POLICE OFFICERS’ ASSOCIATION OF THE HONG KONG POLICE FORCE AND ANOTHER v. ELECTORAL … 27. In our judgment, the construction of the Judge as to the scope of the discretion under Section 21(1) is correct. The arrangement that the ERO can make under that subsection is to arrange entries in the extract in a form appropriate for the purpose of the section. This could not encompass the alteration of the entries in a manner which delinks the addresses from the names as that would involve a partial redaction of each entry so as to render it no longer an entry as defined by Section 3(2). The resulting document would not be an extract from the register. Instead, it would only be the supply of incomplete information derived from the entries in the register. 28. Hence, as the statutory framework presently stands, the ERO does not have a discretion to publish the register or extracts from it in a manner delinking the names of registered electors from their addresses. The Omissions and the Grounds of Appeal 29. In his skeleton submissions, Mr Chan identified, in his words, “three fundamental defects” or “Core Omissions” in the electoral registration system (the “Omissions”): (1) “Absolute lack of choice” for voters to opt out of providing the Linked Information to others beyond the electoral authorities, irrespective of the severity of potential harm to privacy and personal and family safety and how clearly that risk can be shown. (2) “Total lack of discretion” for the Respondents to withhold the Linked Information regardless of the nature and extremity of the prevailing circumstances and the risks of harm upon disclosure. (3) “Complete lack of differentiation” in providing access to the Linked Information as between the disparate categories of the public. https://legalref.judiciary.hk/lrs/common/search/search_result_detail_frame.jsp?DIS=128057&QS=%2B&TP=JU&ILAN=en 9/39