290 Hong Kong Cases [2008] 1 HKC 3. In the verdict (the Verdict) delivered by the Changsha Court on 27 April 2005, it was stated that: ‘That night [20 April 2004] at approximately 13:32 pm, defendant Shi Tao leaked [secret] information to an overseas hostile element, taking advantage of the fact that he was working overtime alone in his office to connect to the internet through his phone line and used his personal email account (huoyan_1989©yahoo.com.cn) to send his notes on the above-mentioned summary of the main contents of CPC General Office Document No 11 (2004). He also used the alias ‘198964’ as the name of the provider.…’ 4. According to the Verdict, evidence which the Changsha Court took into account in convicting the appellant included the following: ‘Account holder information furnished by Yahoo! Holdings (Hong Kong) Ltd, which confirms that for IP address 218.76.8.201 at 11:32:17 pm on April 20, 2004, the corresponding user information was as follows: user telephone number: 0731-4376362 located at the Contemporary Business News office in Hunan; address: 2F, Building 88, Jianxiang New Village, Kaifu District, Changsha.’ 5. On 18 October 2005, YHHK issued a press release denying its involvement in the disclosure of the relevant user information. 6. On 21 October 2005, the Privacy Commissioner for Personal Data (the Commissioner) raised preliminary enquiries with YHHK for the purpose of determining whether YHHK acted in violation of the Personal Data (Privacy) Ordinance (Cap 486) (the Ordinance). 7. On 30 March 2006, the appellant, through his authorised representative, lodged a complaint with the Commissioner against YHHK alleging that YHHK had wrongfully disclosed his personal data to the PRC authorities. 8. The Commissioner carried out an investigation pursuant to s 38(a) of the Ordinance. In a report published under s 48(2) of the Ordinance on 14 March 2007 (the Report), the Commissioner found that YHHK had not violated the provisions of the Ordinance. 9. Dissatisfied with the Commissioner’s finding, on 24 April 2007 the appellant lodged the present appeal to this Board. 10. Before we go into the parties’ contentions in more detail, we shall first set the relevant background by (1) looking at the corporate structure of YHHK, (2) highlighting the relevant provisions in the Ordinance and A B C D E F G H I