7/17/2020 CACV73/2020 JUNIOR POLICE OFFICERS’ ASSOCIATION OF THE HONG KONG POLICE FORCE AND ANOTHER v. ELECTORAL … 46. Thus, there cannot be any generalization on the utility of the right of privacy over one’s residential address. The essence of the right is the ability of a person to control the extent of the dissemination of such piece of information. It does not depend on the consequences that may follow upon disclosure. Once the right is taken away, the right of privacy is substantially interfered with. It does not matter that for some people, the consequences of such disclosure is perceived as minimal interference. This analysis explains the importance of identifying the essence of the right precisely and avoids the conflation of the consequences of incursion with the incursion of the right. However, as we explain below, when conducting the proportionality analysis, the consequences of the incursion will assume a greater significance (both in terms of the applicable standard of review and the striking of the balance at the appropriate standard). 47. The right to vote under BL 26 is also engaged, albeit indirectly. This stems from the deterrent effect on an individual in the effective exercise of his voting right if he has to disclose to the public his principal residential address even when such disclosure could put his or his family’s life and safety in danger. Based on the principles discussed in Stunt v Associated Newspapers Ltd [2017] 1 WLR 3985, at §54 per Popplewell J; Mosley v United Kingdom (2011) 53 EHRR 30, at §§129 and 132, the Judge found at [47] of the Judgment that such right is also encroached upon. Systemic challenge not confined to concerns arising from doxxing 48. The Judge considered the absence of evidence of connecting the specific instances of doxxing with the publication of the Linked Information in the registers[10]. https://legalref.judiciary.hk/lrs/common/search/search_result_detail_frame.jsp?DIS=128057&QS=%2B&TP=JU&ILAN=en 15/39