7/17/2020 CACV73/2020 JUNIOR POLICE OFFICERS’ ASSOCIATION OF THE HONG KONG POLICE FORCE AND ANOTHER v. ELECTORAL … 87. But the crux of this appeal is not about the operation of the system in ordinary cases. Instead, the crucial examination focuses on the extent to which the Transparent Election Aim would be eroded if there is a limited discretion for restricting public access to the Linked Information of a limited number of registered electors. The limited discretion would only be exercised when an elector can persuade the ERO that there is a real risk of harm to the safety of himself or his family if unrestricted public access is not withheld. 88. If there were to be such limited discretion, a person who seeks to have the discretion to be exercised in his favour would have to provide the necessary materials to support the application. As we have said earlier, the threshold can be high. To counter-balance against the withholding of his Linked Information from public inspection (thus reducing the extent of public monitoring of accuracy of the addresses of registered electors as stated on the registers), it would be a legitimate requirement to demand him to submit satisfactory proof of his principal residential address (which is not required when an elector makes his registration as an elector). Further, as we have said above, the Linked Information would still be made available to the candidates in the election under Section 38(1). 89. In addition, though it is ultimately a matter for the Respondents, in light of the role played by the press and the political parties, there could be provisions for the restricted publication of the Linked Information to these specified categories of persons even if general publication is to be restricted. In R(F) v Justice Secretary, supra, at [64], Lord Rodger (with the agreement of Lord Hope) made the following observations: https://legalref.judiciary.hk/lrs/common/search/search_result_detail_frame.jsp?DIS=128057&QS=%2B&TP=JU&ILAN=en 28/39