Journalists may need judicial review to access land records under new rules

Hong Kong journalists will have to rely on judicial review if the government refuses to provide land records in future, with authorities pledging to simplify applications and deliver records in as little as one to two working days.

Officials made the pledge on Tuesday as lawmakers raised concerns over possible restrictions on media access during the first meeting of a Legislative Council subcommittee examining eight pieces of subsidiary legislation for the proposed land record search arrangement and other operations under a new title registration system.

Legal advisers to the Legislative Council also asked whether the government would consult the public on the criteria for assessing applications made on public-interest grounds.

Under the new regime, public interest is one of nine specified purposes for which the public and stakeholders may search land records to obtain essential information and supporting documents for current entries.

Only public interest applications must be assessed by the Land Registrar; all others receive the information immediately.

Documents relating to past entries are available only to 15 types of people, including those who declare a public-interest purpose.

Permanent Secretary for Development Doris Ho Pui-ling said journalists reporting on property transactions and the property market could obtain the documents immediately for “academic purposes or reporting on the property”.

Other kinds of reporting, such as suspected large-scale illegal structures, could proceed on public-interest grounds and approval would be granted within one to two working days if sufficient information were provided.

“The government is willing to consider purposes that society values,” she said.

“Applications filed based on public interest require assessment, providing the authorities with a chance to decide whether public interest outweighs privacy rights and approve.

“Land records are not for easing investigative reporting but for maintaining property market operation and providing simplified arrangements for professionals, potential buyers and public officers to obtain information.

“For purposes beyond [property-related] purposes, we have to be careful. That is why we introduce the application mechanism.”

Ho said the threshold for information requests was not high and the one- to two-day assessment period was reasonable and practical.

“We do not require stating how the report will completely serve public interest at the moment of application. We want to know the direction of investigation and how the information can help achieve serving public interest,” she said.

Land Registrar Bruno Luk Kar-kin added that reporters would not need to prove a matter had occurred, but would only have to state their suspicion and explain how it engaged the public interest.

Authorities would seek more information if needed and grant approval after assessment.

If an application made on public-interest grounds were rejected, reporters could seek judicial review, Ho said.

Augustine Wong Ho-ming, who represents the real estate sector, said the mechanism could create “numerous obstacles” for the media because judicial review is time-consuming and costly and can erode news value.

He called for a simplified review mechanism, or for applications from media outlets on an approved “white list” to be fast-tracked.

Rebecca Chan Hoi-yan, a former news editor at Now TV, voiced reservations about the absence of an appeal mechanism, which could “potentially wipe out normal reporting”.

Despite that absence, Ho said the government was striving to minimise inconvenience to the media by lowering the threshold for requests and replying within one to two days, in a bid to reduce the chance of outlets objecting to the plan.

She rejected the white-list proposal, saying the public-interest route offered greater flexibility.

Ho also said journalists who obtained records through the public-interest route but never published a report would not be breaking the law on false declarations, since they had suspected a matter affecting the public interest at the time of application.

The legislature’s legal advisers had written to the government last Friday seeking clarification of the proposed search arrangement.

They asked whether the government would provide a non-exhaustive list of examples of what constitutes a “public interest” purpose, whether it would give written reasons for refusing such applications, and whether a review mechanism would be included.

Further questions covered whether the government would set out the factors for considering public-interest applications in law or in guidance, and whether the assessment criteria would be subject to public consultation.