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