The Hong Kong Journalists Association issued a statement yesterday (20th) criticizing the Independent Police Complaint Handling Committee for its role of "monitoring" of the police as ineffective and unable to effectively perform its duties.
The IPCC developed a statement late at night last night, refuting the statement that it was completely wrong, reiterating that it has multiple powers, and pointed out that in 26 complaints, the CAPO had contacted the HKMA more than 30 times, urging the complainant to provide contact information and as soon as possible Assisted in the investigation, but all the complainants never contacted the CAPO, so the case can only be classified as "untrackable."
The CAPO is a department within the structure of the police force. Therefore, most of the parties concerned are only willing to submit their information to the IPCC.
(Profile picture)
The Journalist Association stated that it wrote to the IPCC on June 17, 2019, and complained a total of 27 cases involving individual police officers suspected of using excessive violence against journalists during the anti-amendment period.
Two years and four months later, the Journalist Association finally received a letter from the CAPO on Tuesday (18th), stating that as of October 11 this year, only one journalist had personally provided the police with information on the allegations and the case was completed. The investigation was conducted and forwarded to the IPCC; as for the remaining cases, the police stated that they were classified as "Not Pursuable" because neither the Association nor the parties involved submitted further information to it.
The Journalist Association stated that a letter was sent to the IPCC on the same day to emphasize that all cases were collected by the Association’s public appeals to the industry; all case information was provided by the parties by name, and attached with photos and videos provided by the parties or other reporters at the scene. record.
Except for a few due to employer restrictions or safety considerations, most of the parties themselves are willing to submit their information to the IPCC.
The HKPA reiterated that the CAPO is a department within the police force structure. It is suspected of "inspecting its own people". The IPCC has no investigative powers, nor can it overturn the CAPO's investigation results. The role of "monitoring" is in vain. Therefore, the parties concerned have completely lost confidence in the existing mechanism for complaints against the police, which is indeed unexpected.
The CAPO's allegation that the association and the parties were unable to investigate without providing them with further information is putting the cart before the horse.
Therefore, I believe that the CAPO and the IPCC in the current mechanism are unable to effectively perform their duties, and expressed disappointment.
The IPCC retorted that all the complainants had never contacted the CAPO, so the cases could only be classified as "untrackable".
(Information Picture/Photographed by Lu Yiming)
IPCC: first received and investigated by CAPO
The IPCC stated that under the current laws, the police complaints mechanism in Hong Kong operates in a two-tier structure. The CAPO receives and investigates complaint cases, and the IPCC reviews the investigation report of each complaint case to fully clarify the evidence related to the case. , In order to make a fair and independent review.
All reportable complaints involving the 2019 turmoil will be reviewed and closely monitored by the Serious Complaint Cases Committee, and observers will be arranged to attend the CAPO's meetings with all complainants and respondents.
Regarding the accusation that the IPCC “cannot overturn the investigation results of the CAPO”, “monitoring the police is in vain”, “cannot perform its duties effectively”, and “mostly refer to the police’s statement”, the IPCC It is completely wrong to refute the statement.
The committee reiterated that it has a number of powers, including the ability to request meetings with people involved in the case, raise questions, request CAPO clarification and provide more information, and even further investigate.
Anti-Fingerprint Association refuses to provide complainant's joint settlement method
Regarding the 27 complaint cases referred to by the HKJAA, the IPCC stated that “all case information was provided by the parties’ names”, but the letter did not provide any complainant’s name or contact method; in the 27 complaint cases, Only 9 cases provided some videos or photos for investigation, while the remaining cases only had some written statements about the content of the complaint.
In the end, only one complainant took the initiative to contact the CAPO, and the allegations of "impoliteness" in the case were "proved to be true."
For the remaining 26 complaints, the CAPO has contacted the HKIA more than 30 times, urging the complainants to provide contact information and assist in the investigation as soon as possible. However, they have never contacted CAPO, so they are all classified as "untrackable" according to the current mechanism. .
The association stated that it is still continuing to carefully review the existing relevant information, including the videos and photos provided in the letter of the record. Due to the incomplete information, it is impossible to determine all the facts of the incident, so it is unable to reach any definite conclusions.
The CCPC will send a copy of the restricted access folder to the taxi involved in 6 cases, including the complainant’s personal data
01News