The Hong Kong Journalists Association (HKJA) recently made a declaration alleging that the Transport Department’s new procedure to apply for a Certificate of Particulars of Vehicle to journalists impedes the freedom of the press.
The association argues that the government has disregarded a June 2023 verdict by the Court of Final Appeal (CFA). This specific case concerned a local journalist who filed for the certificate to perform investigative journalism for her television documentary on the 2019 Yuen Long attacks. The online form did not include journalism among the options in its dropdown menu, and the journalist marked her purpose as “other traffic and transport-related matters.” Soon after, she faced prosecution allegations of “knowingly making a false statement in a material particular for the purpose of obtaining a certificate” under the Road Traffic Ordinance.
However, the CFA overturned her conviction by embracing a constructive approach to uphold the constitutionally protected freedom of speech and press. The court ruled the category of “other traffic and transport-related matters” should cover investigative journalism conducted in good faith.
This January, the government introduced a policy necessitating a written application from journalists to the Commissioner of Transport if they want to access the vehicle registry under “exceptional circumstances”. An unsuccessful application attempt by a local media company was documented soon after; this stoked HKJA’s allegations that needing to apply under exceptional circumstances contradicts the CFA’s judgment. The HKJA argues that this policy gives excessive power to the Commissioner to define “public interest”, potentially leading to conflicts of interest and hampering investigative journalism. They have also expressed concern about timing and maintaining confidentiality in news reporting due to the prolonged application process.
On the other hand, the Transport Department responded that the Commissioner has a public duty to safeguard personal information and minimize the risk of its misuse. Highlighting the fact that CFA acknowledged a risk of misuse in the original application process, the Department argued that the current facilitated arrangement only aims to prevent personal data abuse. Furthermore, the Department clarified that a mechanism to avert conflicts of interest when public servants perform their duties does exist, and guidance is provided to the Commissioner to decide if an application involves “significant” public interest.