7/17/2020 CACV73/2020 JUNIOR POLICE OFFICERS’ ASSOCIATION OF THE HONG KONG POLICE FORCE AND ANOTHER v. ELECTORAL … 56. Another systemic challenge case is R (UNISON) v Lord Chancellor [2017] 3 WLR 409 which concerned the challenge to the Employment Tribunals and the Employment Appeal Tribunal Fees Order 2013 as a disproportionate hamper to access to justice. The argument was advanced that the fees could not be unlawful unless it was proved that they have prevented access to justice in specific cases. That was not proved because no one gave evidence that they were unable to bring a claim because they could not afford the fees and there was discretionary power to remit the fees. That argument was rejected. At [91] of the judgment, Lord Reed JSC held that conclusive evidence was not necessary and it was sufficient if a real risk was demonstrated. 57. In the present appeal, the systemic challenge is brought against the absolute nature of the requirement of public inspection of the electoral registers. Like the case of R (F) v Justice Secretary, supra, the scope of the Constitutional Challenge is a narrow one. The main thrust of the submissions of Mr Chan was directed against the absence of any discretion to restrict general public inspection even on occasions of real risk to personal or family safety of a particular elector. Arguments were run on similar approach to the reasoning of Lord Phillips at [57] that there are bound to be cases in which an exception to the general requirement were called for in order for the system to be proportionate. 58. We hold that in this context, a real risk of harm occasioned by the unrestricted public inspection of the electoral registers is demonstrated and is sufficient to support the Constitutional Challenge. In the circumstances, there is no need to have evidence of specific instances of such harm to be put before the Court. Proportionality 59. The Judge applied the proportionality test as explained by the Court of Final Appeal in Hysan Development Co Ltd v Town Planning Board (2016) 19 HKCFAR 372, at §§133-135: https://legalref.judiciary.hk/lrs/common/search/search_result_detail_frame.jsp?DIS=128057&QS=%2B&TP=JU&ILAN=en 19/39