According to Tung Chee-hwa, the 10-month delay by Xinhua in responding to the request from ousted legislator Emily Lau Wai-hing to see any personal file on her was a 'technical' rather than 'substantial' breach of a privacy law which requires a reply within 40 days.
Quite what the difference is, Mr Tung was unable to explain when questioned on the Government's decision not to prosecute Xinhua. But he did indicate his belief that failure to comply with a statutory time limit was not a sufficiently serious matter to merit legal action.
This will come as a surprise to those hit with a surcharge for paying their tax bills late or anyone caught by police with an out-of-date car tax disc. Without statutory deadlines, government revenue would slow to a trickle and the administration of justice might falter.
This obviously was not Mr Tung's intention. Earlier, during the same press conference, he had reiterated the importance of the rule of law and stressed that decisions on prosecutions were a matter for the Department of Justice. But by offering such a curious justification when the Government had previously refused to give reasons for its decision not to prosecute, Mr Tung has injected an element of uncertainty into the legal process.
When even the Chief Executive is unable to offer a comprehensive definition of what constitutes a technical breach of the law, it will be difficult for anyone else to know how it should be defined. What is certain is that he has handed every defendant a golden opportunity to argue that they should go unpunished because their transgression falls into this category. Some may even try to cite Mr Tung's remarks as part of their defence.
At the very least, it will now be difficult to persuade anyone to comply with the 40-day time limit in the Personal Data (Privacy) Ordinance when the Chief Executive has so publicly downplayed its importance. At worst, all statutory deadlines may now be treated with an element of flexibility.
