Hong Kong public broadcaster RTHK does not have the right to freedom of expression, High Court rules
- Court also finds fault with communications watchdog warning station over its portrayal of police in Headliner, a satirical TV programme
- Episode at centre of judicial review implied police hoarded masks during Covid-19 crisis, parodied officers
Hong Kong public broadcaster RTHK does not as a government department have the right to freedom of expression, according to a court which also found fault in a watchdog’s decision to warn the station about its portrayal of police in a controversial satire.
The Communications Authority had found the episode violated its TV Programme Code and cautioned the broadcaster to observe the relevant provisions more closely.
Lawyers for RTHK’s Programme Staff Union and the Hong Kong Journalists Association subsequently called the warning a disproportionate restriction on RTHK’s freedom of expression, and accused the authority of making an unlawful decision by misinterpreting and misapplying the code without due regard to the episode’s unique nature as a satire.
But the High Court noted that the challenged decision was made against a government department, which could not enjoy the same legal rights accorded to Hong Kong residents under the Basic Law, the city’s mini-constitution.
The episode, which aired on February 14, 2020, drew more than 3,000 complaints, with the authority finding three aspects substantiated, concluding it was partly inaccurate, denigrating or insulting to police, and that it had failed to express a sufficiently broad range of views expected of a personal views programme.
RTHK, which is not a party to the present judicial review, subsequently apologised following the authority’s decision on May 19 last year.
On Thursday, Mr Justice Anderson Chow Ka-ming sided with the authority in finding there was no basis for the two trade unions to mount any constitutional review of the decision, adding it was both “inapt and wrong” to suggest that RTHK’s right to freedom of speech had been restricted or infringed.