Junior Police Officers’association of the Hong Kong Police Force and Another v. Electoral Affairs Commission and Others
Read the full judgment text of HCAL 3042/2019 on BabelCite. This High Court CFI judgment was delivered on 25 November 2019.
1. This is an application by Hong Kong Journalists Association (“HKJA”) for leave to intervene in these proceedings. At the conclusion of the hearing on 25 November 2019, I informed the parties that I would give brief reasons for my decision on the application, which I now do.
Cited by 2 cases · Cites 4 cases
|
HCAL 3042/2019 [2019] HKCFI 2887 IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE CONSTITUTIONAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE LAW LIST NO 3042 OF 2019 ________________________
________________________
________________________ Before: Hon Chow J in Chambers (Open to Public) Date of Hearing: 25 November 2019 Date of Decision: 25 November 2019 ___________________ D E C I S I O N ___________________ 1.This is an application by Hong Kong Journalists Association (“HKJA”) for leave to intervene in these proceedings. At the conclusion of the hearing on 25 November 2019, I informed the parties that I would give brief reasons for my decision on the application, which I now do. 2.A brief background of the present application for judicial review has been given in the judgment of the Court of Appeal in CACV 489/2019 handed down on 22 October 2019, and shall not be repeated here. 3.The principal issue to be determined in the substantive application is whether various provisions of the Electoral Affairs Commission (Registration of Electors) (Legislative Council Geographical Constituencies) (District Council Constituencies) Regulation, Cap 541A and the Electoral Affairs Commission (Electoral Procedure) (District Councils) Regulation, Cap 541F, and/or the decision(s) or practice(s) of the Electoral Affairs Commission, the Chief Electoral Officer and the Electoral Registration Officer under or pursuant to those provisions, which permit the public, including candidates in a District Council Election, to freely inspect or given copies of the Final Register (or a part or parts thereof) which contains what has been referred to as the “Linked Information” (ie information linking the name of registered electors directly with their principal residential addresses) constitute a disproportionate interference with the registered electors’ right to privacy under Art 14 of the Hong Kong Bill of Rights and/or right to vote under Art 26 of the Basic Law. 4.Although the present application for judicial review made by Junior Police Officers’ Association of the Hong Kong Police Force and AA is prompted by the recent practice of “doxxing” targeted against members of the police force and their family members, it should be noted that this application affects not just police officers but all registered voters. Indeed, police officers do not enjoy any better or higher right to privacy or right to vote than ordinary members of the public. As I understand it, HKJA seeks to intervene to oppose the application for judicial review. 5.The proper approach to be adopted by the court in considering an application for intervention in public law proceedings was considered by the Appeal Committee of the Court of Final Appeal in QT v Director of Immigration (2018) 21 HKCFAR 150, at paragraphs 13 to 18, which this court applied in MK v Government of the HKSAR [2019] 2 HKLRD 978. In summary, subject to considerations of specific prejudice to the parties to the proceedings, the primary consideration of the court when deciding whether to permit intervention is whether the proposed intervener is likely to be able to provide additional, material, assistance on either law or fact or the consequences of the court’s judgment which it is unlikely will be provided by the immediate parties to the proceedings. 6.Mr Paul Shieh, SC argues that these considerations are satisfied in relation HKJA’s application to intervene in these proceedings. In particular, Mr Shieh argues that:
7.In respect of (1), I have some reservation on whether journalists can be said to have particular “expertise” in inspecting the Final Registry. The task is no doubt laborious or tedious, but it is not clear that any particular expertise is required to read, understand, memorise and/or interpret the information contained in the Final Register. I accept, nevertheless, that ordinary members of the public, apart from possibly political parties and candidates in an election, may not have any particular incentive to inspect the Final Register, still less to carry out other searches, such as land searches or companies searches, in order to detect possible vote rigging, whereas journalists engaging in investigative journalism would be prepared to spend time and effort to do so. 8.In respect of (2), I accept that HKJA’s involvement will provide a fuller understanding of the freedom of the press in actual practice, but not necessarily the right to free and fair elections which I believe the court can readily grasp and understand. 9.I accept Mr Shieh’s submissions in respect of points (3) to (5), although I should mention that, in respect of (4), evidence on how inspection of the Final Register is actually carried out can, of course, be given by the Electoral Registration Officer. 10.On the other hand, I do not consider that the Applicants or the Putative Respondents will likely suffer any significant or substantial prejudice as a result of HKJA being permitted to intervene in these proceedings. In particular, in relation to the concern about preserving the confidentiality of the identity of AA, I consider that this concern can be addressed by permitting appropriate redaction of the documents already filed in court prior to their service on HKJA, with liberty to the parties to apply for further directions in the event that they are unable to agree on the scope or extent of the redaction. 11.Taking everything into account, and bearing in mind the importance that the law attaches to the freedom of the press, I consider that HKJA ought to be allowed to intervene in these proceedings. 12.Accordingly, I make the following orders and give the following directions:
13.Previous directions contained in paragraph 3 of the Court’s Ruling dated 23 October 2019 shall be modified or superseded accordingly.
Mr Tony Ko, instructed by Li & Partners, for the 1st and 2nd Applicants Mr Mark Chan, DPGC (Ag), instructed by Department of Justice, for the 1st to 3rd Putative Respondents Mr Paul Shieh, SC, Mr Robert Pang, SC and Ms Natalie So, instructed by L & L Lawyers, for the Intended Intervener Judge of the Court of First Instance | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Cases cited in this judgment
Other judgments that cite this case
Further hearings and rulings under HCAL 3042/2019