7/17/2020 CACV73/2020 JUNIOR POLICE OFFICERS’ ASSOCIATION OF THE HONG KONG POLICE FORCE AND ANOTHER v. ELECTORAL … 53. In this connection, we can dispose of an argument on the evidential requirement for this kind of systemic challenge. Mr Shieh submitted that it was necessary for the Applicants to show “real and substantial risk” of harm and they could not do so because there is no evidence to show that there would likely be “profound impact” on the electors’ right to privacy or right to vote, relying on RXG v Ministry of Justice [2020] 2 WLR 635 at [60]-[61]. 54. With respect, RXG v Ministry of Justice, supra, was not a case in which a systemic challenge was brought. In that case, the court was asked to consider whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, a contra mundum injunction should be extended the reporting restriction on the identity of a person convicted of terrorist offence beyond his attainment of the age of 18. Though it concerned the balancing of the right of privacy of the applicant under Article 8 of the European Convention and the freedom of expression, it was a case specific exercise as there was no issue on the existence of the jurisdiction to grant the injunction. We do not derive much assistance from that case on the evidential requirement in the present context. 55. The case cited by Mr Chan, R (F) v Justice Secretary, supra, was a systemic challenge, see [5] of the judgment. We shall discuss this case further in the discussion on the proportionality analysis. At this stage, we note that the approach of the Supreme Court was to examine if the impugned notification requirements were capable of causing significant interference with article 8 rights, see [44]. At [42] Lord Phillips referred to the reality implicit in the requirement and at [43] His Lordship found that there was an obvious risk inherent in the practical compliance with the requirements. https://legalref.judiciary.hk/lrs/common/search/search_result_detail_frame.jsp?DIS=128057&QS=%2B&TP=JU&ILAN=en 18/39