Supervision mechanism review case. Interpretation of the verdict | Official: The government has the responsibility to establish a system for investigating police officers

Social News

Written by: Zhu Dixin

2020-11-19 21:40

Last update date: 2020-11-19 21:50

In the anti-amendment campaign, the speed dragon team and riot police officers failed to display their numbers, and the mechanism for complaining to police officers caused controversy and triggered this judicial review case.

The judge ruled that most of the applicants won the lawsuit and stated in the ruling that the current identification methods used by the Speed ​​Dragon team and the riot police officers are flawed, and the police have failed to ensure that the police officers strictly enforce them.

Regarding the complaints mechanism, the judge pointedly pointed out that the CAPO is part of the police force, and the IPCC has no investigative powers, nor has it the power to overturn the investigation results of the CAPO.

The victim of the case should have a reasonable method to identify the police officer

In his ruling, the judge stated that in accordance with the Human Rights Act, the government has the responsibility to ensure an appropriate system to effectively investigate cases against police officers.

The victim of the case should have a reasonable method to identify the police officer involved.

The judge pointed out that even if the number displayed by the police officer is not a police officer number, it is at least a unique number and mark.

Both current identification methods are insufficient

At present, the police use the "Alpha ID" and "action call sign" identification methods for the Athlon team and the riot police respectively. The judge believes that both are also inadequate.

Regarding the "Alpha ID", the judge stated that it is behind the police officer's helmet and affects the identification of others.

As for the "action call sign," the judge stated that based on the evidence, several police officers had displayed the same "action call sign," and some police officers did not display the "action call sign."

The judge said that the lack of evidence means that the police have sufficient means to ensure that the police officers display the "Alpha ID" and "action call sign."

The judge therefore ruled that during the anti-regulation campaign, the police did not have a mechanism to ensure that officers displayed unique numbers or marks when performing non-covert operations, which violated the relevant provisions of the Human Rights Law.

The ins and outs of the police review case.

(See the picture below for details)

+5

+5

+5

Complaint mechanism does not meet independent investigation requirements

The judge also pointed out that the current CAPO and IPCC’s complaints mechanism cannot meet the requirements of independent investigations.

The judge explained that the CAPO is part of the police force and is led by a senior superintendent.

Police officers will be transferred from other groups in the police force to the CAPO, and will be transferred back to other groups in the police force after two or three years.

Considering that the Police Supervisory Committee owes investigative power

As for the IPCC, the judge believes that it lacks the necessary investigative powers.

In addition, the IPCC has no power to overturn CAPO's decision.

If the IPCC disagrees with the investigation results of the CAPO, it can only request clarification or further investigation.

The current mechanism is insufficient to investigate police violence

The judge pointed out that according to the Human Rights Act, the government has the responsibility to ensure an independent mechanism to investigate complaints involving police violence, but the current mechanism is insufficient to perform this duty.

Some applicants do not have enough interest to apply for review

The applicants Chen Jiqiu, Guo Zhuojian and Liang Songheng all questioned that the Speed ​​Dragon team did not display the serial number, which was a violation of the "General Police Regulations."

However, the judge pointed out that the "General Police Regulations" did not require the Speed ​​Dragon Team to not display the serial number. He believed that the applicant had failed to point out how the police misquoted the "General Police Regulations" and ruled that their application was lost.

In addition, there was no evidence in the case that Guo Zhuojian and Liang Songheng were subjected to police violence, and the judge believed that they did not have sufficient interests to apply for judicial review.

The judge issued an order that the respondent shall pay the legal costs of Chen Gongxin, Lu Zhansi, and Wu Kanglian, and pay 80% of the legal costs of Yang Zijun.

As there was another judicial review case by the HKMA, the judge issued an order to deal with the costs of the case only after the case was concluded.

Case No.: HCAL 1747, 1753, 2671, 2703, 2915/2019

Riot Athlon did not display the numbering officer on duty and claimed that it violated the Human Rights Law and the complaint mechanism was insufficient

The action call sign replaced the police number to cause controversy

The court ruled that it violated the Human Rights Law Association for not displaying the police officer number: the police should immediately instruct the front line to follow

Athlon Anti-Riot did not display the serial number, court ruling violated the Human Rights Law

01News

Judicial Review Court of the IPCC