19/09/2019
HCMP2801/2015 THE UNIVERSITY
OF HONG KONG v. HONG
KONG
COMMERCIAL
BROADCASTING
CO LTD AND ANOTHER
81. Against this background, counsel for the intended interveners submitted,
in summary, that (1) the Appointment Issue is a matter of public interest;
(ii) reasons should have been, but were not, given by the Council for its
decision made on the 29 September 2015 Meeting; and (111) some members
of the
Council
had
made
unfounded
and
libellous
allegations
against
Prof Chan, taken into account irrelevant considerations in voting against
him, and not acted in the best interests of the University.
82.
The fact that the Appointment Issue has generated some interest in the
press and attracted some public attention is in itself not to the point. The test
is not whether the matters
disclosed would
interest the public or be of
interest to the public, but whether it is in the public interest that disclosure
should be made
and the confidence
breached:
HRH
Prince
Associated Newspapers Ltd, supra, 868; Jameel (Mohammed)
of Wales
v
v Wall Street
Journal Europe Spr! [2007] 1 AC 359, §147.
83. Whether or not because detailed or concrete reasons have not been given
for a decision of the kind under consideration public interest required that
the audio recording of the discussions at the entire meeting be disclosed is a
question that can have far-reaching
consequences.
Numerous
examples
readily come to mind of decisions of the Government, public bodies or even
significant private corporations which can have consequences affecting the
public.
Is confidentiality in their proceedings lost because the matter is of
interest to the public and full reasons have not been announced?
What is the
criterion for favouring disclosure in such a case?
84. The intended interveners refer to the “seven principles of public life” set
out in the Code
of the Council
including
in particular the principle of
“openness���, which states:
“Holders of public office should be as open as possible about all the decisions
and actions that they take. They should give reasons for their decisions and
restrict information only when the wider public interest clearly demands it.”
https: //legalref.judiciary.hk/Irs/common/ju/ju_frame.jsp? DIS=101619&currpage=T
28/33