PCPD News Issue 32

12 / 24

12
PCPD News 私隱專員公署通訊 • Issue no. 32 公署動態
PCPD in Action
個案背景
投訴人及她的前丈夫曾是數宗婚姻訴訟
案的與訟人，上訴庭就此案曾在 2000、
2001 及 2002 年於公開聆訊頒下三宗判
決書。
司法機構應投訴人的要求下，於 2010
及 2012 年在其網頁中的司法參考系統，
以英文字母替代了在上述三宗判決書中
投訴人及她的前丈夫的姓名。
然而，投訴人後來發現在 David Webb
設 立 的 網 站 Webb-site 的 「Who's
Who」內三條列有她的姓名的超連
結，可以聯繫到司法機構網站內該
三宗已被匿名的判決書。使用者若在
「search people 」一欄輸入投訴人的
姓名，Webb-site 便會將使用者帶進
「Who's Who 」的版面，而該三宗判決
則放在「Articles」的項目內。只要按下
「Articles」然後再按該些超連結，使用
者便可直達司法參考系統內的三宗匿名
判決。
根據 Webb-site 所指，其宗旨是「就香港
的公司管治、商業、財經、投資和受規管
的事務，提供獨立的評論。」投訴人感
到委屈，因而向公署投訴 David Webb。
公署完成調查後，認為 David Webb 在
其網站內刊登了該列有投訴人的姓名的
該三條超連結，實質是透露了她在三
宗判決中本已被匿名的身份，違反了
條例的保障資料第 3 原則的規定，並
向 David Webb 發出執行通知指令他從
Webb-site 刪除該三條超連結。三宗判
決只涉及關乎投訴人的私生活的婚姻訟
訴，與她的公職並無相關。David Webb
隨後向委員會就公署的決定及所發出的
執行通知提出上訴。委員會於今年 7 月
13 日審理此上訴個案。
委員會的決定
委員會確定公署所作出的決定，而所發
出的執行通知亦為正確，並作出以下的
裁定 :
保障資料第 3 原則是針對不當地使用個
人資料，無論有關資料曾在其他地方被
公開或來自公共領域。David Webb 是
受條例所規管的資料使用者。
委員會認為保障資料第 3 原則第 4 段所
指「在收集該資料時擬將該資料用於的
目的」，是指當初收集該資料時的目的。
在本個案中，最先是司法機構向投訴人
收集該資料，而司法機構在本案收集投
訴人的個人資料是為了讓他們的判决可
用於「作為法律觀點、法庭實務和程序
的法律先例，以及公眾利益」的用途上。
委員會認為 David Webb 使用投訴人的
個人資料的用途（即一般報告及發佈用
途） 並不符合司法機構發佈該三宗判決
的目的，故委員會認為 David Webb 將
有關資料用於「新目的」，違反保障資
料第 3 原則。
委員會亦認為，公署就言論自由及個人資
料私隱的保障所作出平衡並非屬不合理。
委員會不接納 David Webb 所指他可基
於普通法的公開公義原則，而引用條例
第 60B(a) 條的條文，而獲豁免遵守保
障資料第 3 原則的規定。原因是 David
Webb 並非根據任何法律規定而公開投
訴人的個人資料。
行政上訴委員會的裁決
www. p c p d . o r g . h k / e n g l i s h / f i l e s /
casenotes/AAB_54_2014.pdf
On 27 October 2015, the Administrative
Appeals Board (“AAB”) dismissed the
appeal from Mr David Webb against the
PCPD’s Enforcement Notice directing
him to remove from his Webb-site
in 2014 the three hyperlinks which
effectively disclosed the Complainant’s
identity in three anonymised judgments.
The AAB confirms:
i. the PCPD’s decision that Mr Webb
had contravened Data Protection
Principle 3 (“DPP3” – Data Use
Principle) of the Personal Data
(Privacy) Ordinance (“Ordinance”)
by publishing the three hyperlinks
on Webb-site; and
ii. the justification for the issuance of
the Enforcement Notice.
The PCPD’s Comments
It is not the PCPD’s stance to ask for
removal of articles from the archives of
newspapers and publishers. In this case,
the PCPD only directed Mr Webb to
remove the hyperlinks which showed the
parties’ names in the three anonymised
judgments on the Judiciary’s website,
bearing in mind that the anonymisation
is made pursuant to the request of
the Complainant and is consistent
with Article 10 of the Hong Kong Bill
of Rights. As directed by the Chief
Justice, with effect from April 2011, all
judgments in family and matrimonial
cases at every level of courts, whether
in open court or in chambers, should be
anonymised before release.
In weighing the freedom of press and
expression against the personal data
privacy of the Complainant, the PCPD
was of the view that the disclosure of
the Complainant’s identity in the three
anonymised matrimonial judgments did
not serve to promote the transparency of
operations of companies, governments,
regulators and controlling shareholders;
nor was it able to achieve the purpose of
condemning public vices or protecting
the minority shareholders’ interest. In
the circumstances, the balance should
be tipped in favour of protecting the
Complainant’s personal data in the three
anonymised judgments.
As the AAB has dismissed the appeal,
the Commissioner will follow up with
Mr Webb on his compliance with the
Enforcement Notice.
It is a misconception that publicly
accessible personal data can be further
used or disclosed for any purpose
whatsoever without any regulation.
Personal data obtained from the public
domain is still subject to the protection
under DPP 3 of the Ordinance.
Case Background
The Complainant and her ex-husband
were parties to several matrimonial
proceedings, of which three judgments
were handed down by the Court of
Appeal in 2000, 2001 and 2002 in open
court. At the request of the Complainant,
the Judiciary in 2010 and 2012 replaced
the names of the Complainant and her
ex-husband by alphabets in those three
judgments in the Legal Reference System
of the Judiciary’s website.
However, the Complainant subsequently
found her name revealed on three
hyperlinks on “Who’s Who” of a website
named “Webb-site” established by Mr