19/09/2019 HCMP2801/2015 THE UNIVERSITY 73. OF HONG KONG v. HONG KONG COMMERCIAL BROADCASTING CO LTD AND ANOTHER As I understand the University’s case, the detriment that would result from the disclosure of the information in the present case is not so much any specific risk of harm arising from the publication of the very information in question, as more generally an impairment of the proper functioning of the Council if the principle of confidentiality cannot be enforced. The concern is that a member of the Council or of the staff could surreptitiously record the Council’s proceedings and publicise it — a fact that of itself has serious implications for the operation of the Council in the way it is organised. Mr Smith SC submitted that the absence of protection of confidentiality would create a “chilling effect” on free expression within the Council, and would also deter persons from serving as Council members in future. 74. As Lord Goff observed in Attorney General v Guardian Newspapers Ltd (No 2), supra, at p 282, there is a public interest that confidences should be preserved and protected by the law, nevertheless that public interest may be outweighed by some other countervailing public interest which favours disclosure. 75. I turn to the submissions of the intended interveners about the public interest in disclosing the audio Submissions it is necessary 29 September 2015 Meeting. recordings. In order to evaluate those to set out briefly the events leading to the These are taken from the evidence filed by the intended interveners since the University has not yet filed full evidence on these matters. https: //legalref.judiciary.hk/Irs/common/ju/ju_frame.jsp? DIS=101619&currpage=T 25/33