7/17/2020 CACV73/2020 JUNIOR POLICE OFFICERS’ ASSOCIATION OF THE HONG KONG POLICE FORCE AND ANOTHER v. ELECTORAL … “ the weight to be accorded to the legislative [and I would add, the executive and other authorities] judgment by the court will vary from case to case depending upon the nature of the problem, whether the executive and the legislature are better equipped than the courts to understand its ramification and the means of dealing with it.” 68. What is the nature of the problem in this appeal? We must emphasize that in this appeal we are not asked to formulate the precise criteria or to set up a mechanism for the exercise of the limited discretion regarding restricted public inspection of the electoral registers in the exceptional cases we have highlighted. It is not our function to lay down the scope of those exceptions. We fully acknowledge that in these aspects, there is much room for policy and resource sensitive debates with underlying political implications and the Court should accord a margin of discretion to the electoral authorities and the legislature. In those respects, as Lord Phillips had said in another context in R(F) v Justice Secretary, supra, it is open to the authorities to set a high threshold. We understand that Mr Chan accepted this to be the case. 69. We are presently concerned with whether a fair balance is struck in the overall scheme of things when there is no discretion at all in respect of the general publication of the electoral registers for public inspection notwithstanding that there are bound to be cases where such publication would seriously encroach upon the rights of privacy of a registered elector who has legitimate concerns about the unrestricted disclosure of his residential address. As we have explained, for such person, in order to protect his privacy over the confidentiality of his residential address the only option is to forego his right to vote. 70. The importance that the courts have attached to the right to vote is illustrated by the judgment of A Cheung J (as he then was) in Chan Kin Sum v Secretary for Justice [2009] 2 HKLRD 166. At [149], the learned judge had this to say in addressing the submission that the executive authority and the legislature was better equipped to determine the policy related to prisoner disenfranchisement: https://legalref.judiciary.hk/lrs/common/search/search_result_detail_frame.jsp?DIS=128057&QS=%2B&TP=JU&ILAN=en 22/39