- 11 A
B
A
such criticisms against the Applicant’s application for injunction from
B
other online media.4
C
D
C
25.
The Applicant has pointed to the practice of the Legislative
D
Council and to Chapter 39 of the Police General Orders which recognise
E
F
the Applicant’s membership card, but this does not show that any other
system, particularly in relation to the Chief Executive Election, would be
E
F
irrational and perverse.
G
H
G
26.
Likewise, even if the Applicant is eventually successful in its
H
application for judicial review on the basis that a mandamus is granted as
I
J
sought to require the Secretary and the Director to “review the Policy
forthwith” and “pending the completion of review, [to] relax the
I
J
eligibility criteria for individual Internet media organisations’ registration
K
K
for GNMIS and their request for entry to Government press events
L
M
N
O
P
Q
forthwith”,5 this does not mean there should be no criteria at all in the
meantime, or that the criterion should necessarily be full membership of
the Applicant. The Applicant’s own research shows that the UN, US and
UK all have different systems for assessing or recognising the status of
individual journalists.
27.
In the circumstances, I do not find a high degree of
assurance that at the end of the day, if the Applicant is successful, the
L
M
N
O
P
Q
proper relief would be, or would in effect be equivalent to, the mandatory
R
injunction that it now seeks.
S
S
T
U
V
R
T
4
as exhibited in YCWT-3.
5
as stated in the Applicant’s Form 86.
U
V