7/17/2020 CACV73/2020 JUNIOR POLICE OFFICERS’ ASSOCIATION OF THE HONG KONG POLICE FORCE AND ANOTHER v. ELECTORAL … 104. That case was concerned with the compatibility of public inspection of register of the names and addresses of members of a private company under the then section 98 of the Companies Ordinance with, inter alias, the right of privacy. It was held that a fair balance had been struck between the demands of the general interests of society and the protection of the individual’s fundamental rights. One matter which the court took account in so holding was that those who incorporate could have chosen other forms of association. Further, the public inspection under section 98 was not absolute and there was a discretion to refuse inspection for improper purpose. 105. The context was therefore quite different from what we are concerned with in the present appeal. In terms of general principle, we respectfully agree with the dicta of Hartmann J. However, much depends on the aspect and extent to which the interest of privacy is interfered with. The dicta referred to narrower respect for privacy but not the wholesale abrogation of respect. In relation to the participation in public life by way of registration as an elector, we can certainly accept that the elector would have to provide his principal residential address to the electoral authority. Also in ordinary cases, we would accept that the Linked Information should be open for public inspection. But it certainly does not mean a total disregard of the interest in privacy in all respects. Hence, one must go back to the proportionality analysis as we have conducted above. https://legalref.judiciary.hk/lrs/common/search/search_result_detail_frame.jsp?DIS=128057&QS=%2B&TP=JU&ILAN=en 34/39