The first anniversary of the revision of the law │ 784 cases of requesting information from the police in the first three quarters of last year, the rejection rate was 66%

Burst

Author: Peng Kaixin

2020-06-07 08:00

Using the "Code on Open Information" ("Code") to obtain the desired information? In the past year, there have been thousands of demonstrations and rallies in Hong Kong. Some people complained that police officers without an appointment certificate were violently treated. If they wanted to obtain police officer information in accordance with the Code and then made a complaint, they were refused to provide information; The place where the tear gas was placed in the anti-revision movement was also rejected. "Hong Kong 01" was also denied access to the materials of the Athlon Squad in accordance with the Code.

According to the information, from January to September last year, a total of 784 cases were requested by the Police Force. Among them, 515 requests were rejected, and the rejection rate was 66%, compared with 2.7% in the same period of the previous year.

In the past year, it was very difficult to see the police officer with a certificate of appointment on the scene of the demonstration. The picture shows a riot police officer without a certificate of appointment. (Profile picture)

"Appointment card", "Appointment card", "Appointment card", since June last year, in protests against the amendment of the "Fugitive Offenders Ordinance" in the demonstrations and conflicts often heard demonstrators, the media asked police officers to show the appointment card, but only to see It is very difficult to appoint a real person. In view of the fact that the "disappearing appointment certificate" prevented the public from identifying the police officer, "Hong Kong 01" requested the Police Force to obtain the Athlon Squad’s participation in the demonstration and conflict clearance operations at the end of July last year with the "Code on Access to Information" ("Code"). The police officer's name and number were rejected. The reporter complained to the Ombudsman on August 22 last year.

"Hong Kong 01" Susuolong data was rejected The Ombudsman ruled the complaint was not established

It lasted more than half a year. At the beginning of March this year, the reporter received the investigation result of the Office and ruled that the complaint was not established. The Office accepts the police processing evidence, and believes that the disclosure of information will help the data holders to estimate the presence of the police, and will have an impact on the police’s efforts to maintain public safety. In addition, the police officer has been lifted, thinking that the current disclosure of information will increase the maliciousness of others. The risk of possession and misuse is not unreasonable for the Police Force to refuse to provide information.

However, the Office considers that there is something missing from the Police Force. When refusing to provide the requested information to the applicant, it did not specify the relevant rationale and urged the Police Force to learn from the experience to ensure that the staff will strictly abide by the Code when receiving information from the public in the future ”Rules.

"Hong Kong 01" asked the Constitutional and Mainland Affairs Bureau, which is responsible for collecting statistics on the Code, how many requests were received from the public last year. However, the Bureau said it could not provide the data for the entire year. Only the first and third quarters of last year Statistics, from January to September last year, the government received a total of 6,857 requests for information under the Code, of which 784 were requests for information from the Police Force, and the Police Force rejected 515 requests for information. The rate is about 66%. Compared with the same period of the previous year, the Police Force received 255 requests for information and rejected 7 requests. The rejection rate was only about 2.7%.

The most significant rejection rate was from April to June last year. The government received a total of 2,764 requests for information under the Code, of which 537 were requests for information from the Police Force, and the Police Force rejected 475 requests for information. The rejection rate is as high as 88%.

Cases for requesting information in the first three quarters of 2019

Cases for requesting information in the first three quarters of 2018

Source: Open Information Code webpage

"Hong Kong 01" request for the Athlon team information according to the "Code" was also rejected. The picture shows the Athlon team without an appointment card and number. (Profile picture)

Fu Jinghua, a communications scholar at the University of Hong Kong, said that he also requested information from the Police Force in response to last year's social movement with the "Code". Although he successfully obtained some information, the Police Force refused to provide him with some information related to tear gas. Fu Jinghua said that he wanted to know where the police had released tear gas in Hong Kong. Such information is not sensitive, but it has a great impact on the community, and he does not understand why the Police Force refused to provide it.

Fu Jinghua believes that after the anti-amendment campaign, the number of requests for information from the Police will increase. For example, people in the media industry will also ask for information. However, he believes that the Code is not legally binding, and that the public has lost trust in the government. , The use of the "Code" to obtain information has little effect. He believes that to rebuild trust, it is important to increase the transparency of data, and the Freedom of Information Act allows citizens to request information under statutory procedures, which is more powerful than the currently non-legally binding Office of The Ombudsman.

Mo Naiguang, a member of the Legislative Council, said that after the anti-amendment campaign, the Chief Executive, Lin Zheng Yuee, was different from when he first took office. When implementing the Freedom of Information Act and the Archives Act, he would proceed from a political perspective and first consider whether the two laws would affect the police. The impact, "Considering the police first will make (successful legislation) even more difficult." He believes that the government will take a procrastination decision, and does not think that Lin Zhengren can legislate on these two laws.

According to the Ombudsman Ordinance, although the Office has certain investigative powers, the Office has no binding force on the recommendations made by the investigated department, and the inspected departments can implement the Office’s recommendations without penalty. Mo Naiguang believes that the Freedom of Information Act can ensure citizens' right to know and prevent the government from concealing information that should be disclosed. "For example, policy decisions, citizens have the right to know."

[Riot Decoding] The new action call sign of the riot police deconstructs the four-character identification of the company’s position weapon

[Fugitive Offenders Regulations. Photo Gallery] Ten pictures deconstructing riot control, Athlon "new number"

[Athlon decoding] The helmet has added three new words to identify the troops that the department team A, C and R belong to...

Code of Access to Police