7/17/2020 CACV73/2020 JUNIOR POLICE OFFICERS’ ASSOCIATION OF THE HONG KONG POLICE FORCE AND ANOTHER v. ELECTORAL … 74. At the same time, we are in agreement with the Judge[12] that “no more than necessary” means no more than reasonably necessary and there is no requirement that the measure should be the least intrusive method or result in the least interference with the engaged rights. The Judge further said that the question for the court is not whether the best, or optimal measure, has been adopted, or whether there is any alternative, better, measure that could be adopted. We have no quarrel with that as a general proposition. But the Court has to examine if a fair balance has been struck having regards to the tension between the rights engaged and the legitimate aims which are to be achieved. 75. In this connection, we accept the submission of Mr Chan that the approach of Lord Phillips at [41] in R(F) v Justice Secretary, supra, is pertinent. That case was not cited to the Judge and he did not have the benefit of the submissions based on the same. In that case, the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom considered if the notification requirement under the Sexual Offences Act 2003 (Travel Notification Requirements) Regulations 2004 was compatible with the right to privacy under art 8 of the European Convention. Under those Regulations, a sexual offender who intended to leave the country for a period of three days or longer had to give a notification to the police of the details of foreign travel plan. There was no mechanism for any review of such requirement even when an offender is able to demonstrate that he no longer posed any significant risk of committing further sexual offences. It was claimed that such requirement caused significant interference with art 8 rights. The challenge was held to be valid and a declaration of incompatibility was granted. 76. As mentioned above, the courts in that case were not concerned with the details of the review mechanism and the only issue was whether there should be one. At [41], in the discussion on proportionality, Lord Phillips identified the relevant questions as follows: https://legalref.judiciary.hk/lrs/common/search/search_result_detail_frame.jsp?DIS=128057&QS=%2B&TP=JU&ILAN=en 24/39