7/17/2020 CACV73/2020 JUNIOR POLICE OFFICERS’ ASSOCIATION OF THE HONG KONG POLICE FORCE AND ANOTHER v. ELECTORAL … (3) Under s 21(3) of the Regulation, a person to whom an extract of a register is made available under s 21(1) must not, in relation to that extract, do any act specified in s 22(3)(a), (c) or (d) for a purpose other than a purpose related to an election. Under s 22(5), any person who contravenes s 21(3) commits an offence and is liable to a fine at level 2 and to imprisonment for 6 months. (4) Any person who wishes to inspect a register under s 20, or requests for the provision of (or permission to copy) an extract of a register under s 21, of the Regulation is required to fill in a form giving his personal details, including his full name and identity document number, and informed of the aforesaid statutory prohibitions. He is also required to give an undertaking that the information obtained by him from the register will not be used for any purposes unrelated to an election. (5) Likewise, any candidate to whom an extract of a relevant part of the final register is supplied by the CEO under s 38(1) of the Electoral Procedure Regulation is required to give an undertaking to use the information solely for a purpose related to electioneering activities, and reminded of the offences under ss 21(3) and 22(3) of the Regulation.” 101. In addition, there are administrative constraints imposed on a person inspecting a register which renders it difficult or impracticable to obtain information for the purpose of doxxing against a large group of persons. The Judge gave such constraints limited weight for the reason he gave at [85]. 102. As we have stressed in this judgment, this appeal should not be focused on doxxing against a large group of persons. For reasons already canvassed, we are actually more concerned about misuse of Linked Information against one or a few targeted individuals by someone who intends to do harm to them. For such type of cases, an elector could have a legitimate worry that the legal and administrative safeguards would not provide sufficient protection. In this respect, we repeat our observation at [90] above. 103. Sixth, it is submitted that in registering as an elector, the person participates in public affairs and the incursion on privacy should be regarded as the price to pay for one’s involvement in public life. Reliance was placed on the dicta of Hartmann J in Democratic Party v Secretary for Justice [2007] 2 HKLRD 804 at [59]: “ … Second, respect for an individual’s privacy will be narrower when it is brought into contact with public life or is in conflict with other protected interests.” https://legalref.judiciary.hk/lrs/common/search/search_result_detail_frame.jsp?DIS=128057&QS=%2B&TP=JU&ILAN=en 33/39