-6A B A 12. By a letter dated 17 March 2017, the Applicant urged the B Director to allow its full members access to all press events and facilities C C at the Chief Executive Election. In the morning of 21 March 2017, the D E Secretary replied, stating that since the review concerning Government press events and registration for the GNMIS was still incomplete, the D E existing arrangements would continue to apply on the Chief Executive F F Election Day. G G 13. H I The Applicant contends that the decisions in question are inconsistent with Arts 25, 27 and 39 of the Basic Law, Arts 16(2) and 22 of the Hong Kong Bill of Rights and Arts 19(2) and 26 of the H I International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (which are materially J K identical to the corresponding provisions in Hong Kong Bill of Rights). In broad terms, it is said that the decisions contravene the freedom of J K expression and of the press as well as the guarantee of equality. The L M Applicant also contends that the Secretary and Director have failed to give effect to the Ombudsman’s findings and recommendations and that their decisions are unreasonable in the Wednesbury N 2 unreasonable that no reasonable decision-maker could have come to. N O 14. Q M sense, ie so O P L Mr Chan SC has raised some highly arguable points on behalf of the Applicant. The lack of real progress since 2012, and at the latest since 2014, in reviewing and, if appropriate, adjusting and P Q developing the relevant arrangements in tandem with changing R S circumstances seems to me prima facie unsatisfactory (though I have not of course at this stage considered the full evidence the intended R S respondents may file in response). The Government’s apparent stance of T T 2 U V Associated Provincial Picture Houses Ltd v Wednesbury Corp [1948] 1 KB 223 at 230, 234. U V