is or may be put at risk in the absence of some form of restriction on open justice: R (Kambadzi) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2011] 1 WLR 1299 ； Re BU (supra). 33. The present case falls within this categoiy of cases. As ' mentioned, it was not Mr Yu s case that justice cannot be done between the parties in the appeal itself if it were to be heard in open court. ' Rather, counsel s principal argument was that open administration of justice in this appeal would jeopardise the ' applicant s right to a fair hearing in the ongoing investigation guaranteed under article 10 of the Hong Kong Bill of Rights. The argument can only be resolved by conducting the balancing exercise described above. 34. Ninth, there are other miscellaneous but by no means insignificant considerations that, if relevant, should be taken into account in conducting the balancing exercise. For instance, the nature of the proceedings is relevant: Ex parte Kaim Todner, at p . 978C-D/E. In particular, proceedings by way ofjudicial review relate to decisions made in the public field, and as a general rule, they must be held in public, as the public has a legitimate interest to be informed about them, unless justice would be denied: Re The « Takeovers & Mergers Panel, at p. 62D; Sit Ka Yin Priscilla v Equal Opportunities Commission, at p.28ID. This is an additional ， consideration to the general consideration about the media s and the public's right to know based on article 16(2) of the Hong Kong Bill of Rights discussed in paragraph 21 above. 20