It is incredible that the Department of Justice's decision not to prosecute the local branch of Xinhua (the New China News Agency) for an apparent breach of the Personal Data (Privacy) Ordinance attracted so little media coverage.
While the South China Morning Post reported the case prominently on its front page and Apple Daily referred to it in its inside page on Saturday, other local dailies seemed to have quietly ignored the incident that concerned ousted legislator Emily Lau Wai-hing's demand to see her personal file.
Instead, prominent coverage was accorded to the departure of two vice-directors of the local Xinhua, Zhang Junsheng and Qin Wenjun. Based on the news judgment of the dailies, it seems to suggest their retirement is more relevant to the wider public here than Ms Lau's case.
Editors may ask: why is it a big deal if the Government decides against prosecuting the agency? Should it be worthy of reporting only if a prosecution was brought? These considerations may have been taken by some editors before they decided against publishing the incident, but this argument missed the point - that the local Xinhua is a prominent body in Hong Kong and its behaviour and actions, especially those that have an implication on the enforcement of laws, have a public interest angle and the community deserves to be informed.
There are a whole host of questions that need to be asked. How did the Department of Justice come to its decision? Was it because of a lack of evidence, or because of the department's assessment that it was not in the public interest? The department may feel it should not explain its decision for fear the evidence would have to be revealed and trigger public debate about Xinhua's guilt or innocence. But that argument does not work; it has already been revealed that Xinhua failed to comply with the ordinance's 40-day reply rule.
And with the Privacy Commission's judgment that it considered Xinhua had breached the ordinance, it was always likely the decision against prosecution would trigger public debate.