Freedom of Information Request (Hong Kong)

Freedom of Information Request in Hong Kong — formally called an Access to Information Request — is a written request submitted to a government bureau or department under the Code on Access to Information issued by the Government of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region, administered through each bureau and department, with appeal rights to the Ombudsman under the Ombudsman Ordinance (Cap. 397).

Hong Kong does not have a statutory freedom of information law equivalent to the United Kingdom's Freedom of Information Act 2000, Australia's Freedom of Information Act 1982, or the United States' Freedom of Information Act. Instead, access to government-held information is governed by the Code on Access to Information, an administrative code rather than legislation. The Code was first issued in 1995 and has been revised periodically. Because it is non-statutory, there is no right of judicial review of refusals on freedom of information grounds alone — the primary avenue for challenging a refusal is a complaint to the Ombudsman under Cap. 397.

The Code on Access to Information applies to all government bureaux and departments of the Hong Kong SAR Government. Statutory bodies, public corporations, and bodies that receive public funding but are not government departments are not subject to the Code — for example, the Mass Transit Railway Corporation (MTRC), the Hospital Authority, and the Housing Authority are not covered. However, many of these bodies have their own access to information policies.

Requests under the Code must be made in writing to the relevant bureau or department. Responses are generally due within 10 working days for routine requests and 21 working days for more complex or voluminous requests. The Code sets out a list of exemptions — categories of information that bureaux and departments may withhold — including information relating to defence and security, law enforcement, legal proceedings, internal deliberative processes, commercial confidentiality, and personal privacy.

For personal data held by government bodies, the Personal Data (Privacy) Ordinance (Cap. 486) provides a separate and parallel mechanism: the data access request. Under Part 5 of Cap. 486, individuals have a statutory right to access personal data held about them by any data user, including government departments. A data access request under Cap. 486 has statutory force and is enforceable by the Privacy Commissioner for Personal Data, unlike a Code on Access to Information request which relies on the Ombudsman for enforcement.

The Administrative Appeals Board Ordinance (Cap. 442) establishes the Administrative Appeals Board, which hears appeals against certain government decisions. While Code on Access to Information refusals are not directly appealable to the Administrative Appeals Board (appeals go to the Ombudsman), Cap. 442 is the broader framework for administrative accountability in Hong Kong.

Journalists, researchers, academics, NGOs, legal practitioners, and members of the public all use the Code on Access to Information to obtain government records, policy documents, statistical data, inspection reports, and correspondence. The Code has been used to obtain information about government contracts, licensing decisions, enforcement records, and policy development processes.

The Prevention of Bribery Ordinance (Cap. 201) administered by the Independent Commission Against Corruption (ICAC) is relevant context for access to information requests concerning government contracts, procurement decisions, and regulatory approvals. Transparency in government decision-making — supported by the Code on Access to Information — is a key mechanism for detecting and deterring corruption in public administration. Researchers and journalists investigating potential corruption frequently use access to information requests as a first step in gathering evidence about government decisions and expenditure.

Freedom of Information Request in Hong Kong is needed whenever a person or organisation seeks access to information held by a government bureau or department that has not been publicly released, and wants to use the formal mechanism established by the Code on Access to Information.

Journalists and media organisations need Access to Information Requests to investigate government policy, public expenditure, licensing decisions, and enforcement actions. Hong Kong's media has used the Code to obtain information about government contracts awarded without tender, regulatory inspection records, statistical data underlying policy decisions, and correspondence between government departments on matters of public interest.

Legal practitioners need Access to Information Requests when investigating matters involving government decisions that affect their clients. Solicitors acting in judicial review proceedings, planning appeals before the Town Planning Board, or disputes involving government licences or permits may seek underlying government records through the Code to understand the basis for the government's decisions.

Academic researchers and policy analysts need the Code on Access to Information to obtain government data and records for research purposes. Research into housing policy, environmental regulation, labour market conditions, and public health outcomes often requires access to government-held data beyond what is routinely published.

Business operators need Access to Information Requests when seeking information about regulatory decisions affecting their industry, enforcement data relevant to understanding compliance expectations, or records relating to government contracts and procurement. Companies tendering for government contracts may use the Code to understand how previous tenders were evaluated.

Individuals need Access to Information Requests when seeking records relating to government decisions affecting them personally — for example, records underlying a government licensing decision, correspondence about a planning objection, or enforcement inspection records for a food premises. Note that for access to personal data, a data access request under the Personal Data (Privacy) Ordinance (Cap. 486) is the appropriate mechanism.

NGOs and civil society organisations use the Code on Access to Information to hold government accountable on matters of public concern — environmental impact assessments, land use decisions, social welfare programme outcomes, and government contracts with private service providers.

Requests should be made promptly because the Code does not require government to retain all records indefinitely, and delays in making a request may result in records being unavailable.

Freedom of Information Request in Hong Kong under the Code on Access to Information should include the following essential elements to be properly structured and to maximise the likelihood of a complete and timely response.

Requester Identification: The requester's full name, contact address (postal or email), and telephone number. Anonymous requests are not accepted under the Code. Government departments must know who is making the request in order to respond. There is no requirement under the Code to state reasons for the request, and departments should not require justification as a condition of processing.

Addressee: The correct bureau or department to which the request is directed. Routing the request to the wrong department will cause delay. The Hong Kong SAR Government's website lists all bureaux and departments with their access to information contact points. Requests should be addressed to the designated access to information officer (ATIO) of the relevant bureau or department.

Description of Information Sought: A precise and specific description of the information requested. Vague or overly broad requests are harder for departments to process and more likely to result in partial responses or refusals on the ground that processing would be excessively burdensome. Useful specifications include: the subject matter; the time period (e.g., documents from 2020 to 2023); the type of records (correspondence, inspection reports, minutes, statistics); and any reference numbers or case identifiers known to the requester.

Format of Disclosure: The preferred format — whether copies of documents, inspection of originals, statistical tables, or summaries. Specifying a preference for electronic format (PDF by email) often speeds up the response.

Scope Limitation: If the request is potentially broad, a scope limitation helps departments process it within the 10 or 21 working day timeframe. For example, limiting a request to a specific time period, a specific type of record, or a specific decision or transaction reduces the processing burden and speeds up the response.

Reference to the Code: A statement that the request is made under the Code on Access to Information issued by the Government of the Hong Kong SAR. This signals to the department that the requester is aware of their rights under the Code and expects the department to comply with the Code's procedural requirements including response timelines and exemption justification.

Date: The date of the request, from which the response timelines run. Departments should acknowledge receipt and provide a substantive response within the Code's timeframes. If a department fails to respond within 21 working days, the requester may complain to the Ombudsman under Cap. 397.

Appeal Information: The request should note that if the department refuses all or part of the request, the requester intends to exercise their right to complain to the Ombudsman if dissatisfied with the refusal. Awareness of the Ombudsman appeal mechanism encourages departments to take requests seriously.

Follow-up Mechanism: A statement that the requester will follow up if no acknowledgment is received within 5 working days. Active follow-up on access to information requests is important because unacknowledged requests can be overlooked in busy bureaux and departments. Keeping a record of the date of submission, the method of submission (email, post, in person), and any acknowledgment number provided by the department allows the requester to substantiate a complaint to the Ombudsman if the department fails to respond in time. Forms-legal.com provides a structured Access to Information Request template formatted for submission to Hong Kong SAR Government bureaux and departments, with a follow-up letter template included.

Statutory and Regulatory References: Section 10 of the Ombudsman Ordinance (Cap. 397) empowers the Ombudsman to investigate complaints of maladministration including unjustified refusals of access to information requests. Section 18 of Cap. 397 sets out the Ombudsman's powers of investigation, including compelling production of documents and examination of witnesses. Section 30 of Cap. 397 covers the Ombudsman's report and recommendations. Part 5 of the Personal Data (Privacy) Ordinance (Cap. 486) — comprising Section 18 through Section 22 — gives individuals the statutory right to make data access requests to any data user. Section 26 of Cap. 486 provides for correction of inaccurate personal data. Section 36 of Cap. 486 establishes the Privacy Commissioner for Personal Data with powers of investigation and enforcement. The Prevention of Bribery Ordinance (Cap. 201) administered by the Independent Commission Against Corruption (ICAC) — specifically Section 9 on corruption in private sector and Section 10 on possession of unexplained property — is frequently relevant when access to information requests uncover potential misconduct. The Administrative Appeals Board Ordinance (Cap. 442) provides the framework for appeals against certain government decisions including decisions of the Privacy Commissioner under Cap. 486.

Completing a Freedom of Information Request in Hong Kong — formally an Access to Information Request under the Code on Access to Information — requires a clearly written letter or form addressed to the correct government bureau or department. No prescribed form exists under the Code; requesters draft the request themselves. The steps below set out the full process from identifying the correct recipient to following up and escalating to the Ombudsman if necessary.

1. Identify the correct bureau or department. The Code on Access to Information applies to Hong Kong SAR Government bureaux and departments, not to statutory bodies or public corporations. Determine which bureau or department created or holds the records sought — for example, licensing inspection records are held by the relevant licensing department; policy correspondence is held by the responsible policy bureau; statistical datasets are held by the Census and Statistics Department. Routing the request to the wrong recipient causes delay. Each bureau and department designates an access to information officer (ATIO) who is the correct addressee for requests.

2. Write the requester's full identification at the top. State the requester's full name, postal address or email address, and telephone number. Anonymous requests are not accepted under the Code. No reason for the request need be given, and departments should not demand justification as a precondition of processing — state only the information sought.

3. State clearly that the request is made under the Code on Access to Information. Opening the body of the letter with a direct reference to the Code signals to the ATIO that a formal access to information request is being made and that the Code's response timelines and exemption justification requirements apply. This phrasing distinguishes the request from an ordinary enquiry and triggers the department's formal obligations.

4. Describe the information sought with precision. Vague or overly wide requests invite partial responses or refusals on the ground of excessive processing burden. Specify: the subject matter; the type of records sought (correspondence, inspection reports, minutes of meetings, statistical tables, tender evaluation records); the date range (e.g., 1 January 2022 to 31 December 2023); and any reference numbers, case identifiers, or project names known to the requester. Limiting the scope of the request to what is genuinely needed makes it easier for the ATIO to process the request within the Code's timeframes.

5. State the preferred format of disclosure. Specify whether the requester wants photocopies of documents, electronic files sent by email, or the opportunity to inspect originals. Requesting electronic copies in PDF format by email is the fastest and least burdensome format for most departments and typically produces the quickest response.

6. Date the request and submit by a traceable method. Date the letter — response timelines run from the date the request is received. Submit by email (retaining the sent message and any auto-acknowledgment) or by post with registered mail or a delivery confirmation service. Record the date of submission and any reference number assigned by the department in an acknowledgment.

7. Follow up if no acknowledgment is received within five working days. Departments must acknowledge receipt under the Code. If no acknowledgment arrives, write briefly to the ATIO referencing the original request date and asking for confirmation of receipt. Active follow-up is necessary because requests can be misrouted or overlooked in large bureaux.

8. Respond to any extension notice promptly. Where a department notifies the requester of an extension beyond 10 working days — up to 21 working days for complex or voluminous requests — note the extended deadline and diarise a follow-up date. If no substantive response is received by the extended deadline, the failure to respond is itself a basis for complaint to the Ombudsman.

9. Escalate to the Ombudsman if refused or ignored. Where the department refuses the request in whole or in part, it must state which exemption under the Code applies. If the requester considers the refusal unjustified, or if the department fails to respond at all, file a written complaint with the Office of the Ombudsman under Section 10 of the Ombudsman Ordinance (Cap. 397). Retain all correspondence — the original request, any acknowledgment, the refusal letter, and follow-up letters — as evidence for the Ombudsman investigation.