Previous 37 / 39 Next

7/17/2020 CACV73/2020 JUNIOR POLICE OFFICERS’ ASSOCIATION OF THE HONG KONG POLICE FORCE AND ANOTHER v. ELECTORAL … 116. To minimize the disruption to the upcoming election, we shall hear parties on the terms of the order that we should make in light of this judgment. If there is any application for temporary suspension order, we shall hear the same at the same time. 117. For these purposes, we shall list the appeal for hearing on 27 May 2020 at 10:00 am. Skeleton submissions shall be lodged and served as follows: (a) The Applicants shall lodge and serve their submissions by 12:00 noon on 25 May 2020; (b) The Respondents and the Interveners shall lodge and serve their submissions by 12:00 noon on 26 May 2020. 118. Last but not least, we thank counsel for their able assistance. Hon Barma JA: 119. I agree with the judgment of Lam VP. (Jeremy Poon) Chief Judge of the High Court (M H Lam) (Aarif Barma) Vice President Justice of Appeal Mr Abraham Chan SC, Mr Tony Ko and Mr John Leung, instructed by Li & Partners, for the applicants Mr Raymond Leung SC, Ms Grace Chow, instructed by the Department of Justice, for the respondents https://legalref.judiciary.hk/lrs/common/search/search_result_detail_frame.jsp?DIS=128057&QS=%2B&TP=JU&ILAN=en 37/39

Select target paragraph3

● ● ●

Hong Kong Police Force v. Electoral Affairs Commission

Judgment

Question Presented: Whether a publicly accessible voter list violates the right to privacy?

Alleged Acts: The current registration scheme requires that the names of registered voters and their addresses be made publicly accessible. The plaintiff filing suit alleging that the legal framework violated the voter’s right to privacy, family, home, and to vote.

Procedural history: The lower court judge determined that public inspection serves legitimate state interests. In particular, public inspection assisted in ensuring that voter exercised their rights in the correct districts, increased transparency, and assisting in effective campaigning through personal visits. The action is brought by the police officers because they state that information infringes on the right to privacy. The action faced a constitutional and fact-specific challenge.

Summary: The court considered that the publication of the voter list did serve the role of increasing transparency during elections. However, the list is absolutely unrestricted and does not have exemption provision if the voter has a concern for his/her safety. The court stated that this also presented a legitimate safety concerns for some voters because they could not present any evidence that they needed to opt out of the system.

Conclusion: The court determined that the current legal framework did not strike the appropriate balance between the state interests and the rights of the voters. The court set another hearing for the parties to prepare appropriate remedies in advance of the upcoming election.

Legal Issue(s)

Voter Registration

Applicable Law(s): Bill of Rights 14; BL26

Region: Asia-Pacific

Country: Hong Kong

Language of Decision

English

Court: Supreme Court

Election Type: Review of law

Date of decision: May 5, 2020

Geolocation

Latitude: 22.47610994250958

Longitude: 114.15724766067022

: Geolocation

Primary Documents

Hong Kong Police Force v. Electoral Affairs Commission.pdf
English
Download View

Election Judgments - IFES

Select target paragraph3

Hong Kong Police Force v. Electoral Affairs Commission

Primary Documents

Notifications