1.  2015年7月10日,獨立監察警方處理投訴委員會(「監警會」)以12-6大比數決定朱經緯警司於2014年11月26日在旺角毆打途人的投訴屬實。2015年7月18日,有報導指投訴警察課不同意監警會決定,並向監警會提出修改原來決定的反建議,亦即將指控列為「毆打未能完全證明屬實」及「濫用職權未經舉報但證明屬實」。

2.  監警會秘書處在回應傳媒時表示投訴警察課向監警會提出了新的觀點。因此,秘書處向監警會委員建議於2015年7月20日再召開會議,以決定是否需要再次審視和討論投訴個案及是否就投訴個案再進行投票。2015年7月22日,監警會維持決定,拒絕重新審視決定。

3.  法政匯思注意到監警會沒有權力對被投訴警務人員的檢控、調查、甚至紀律聆訊作出指引,監警會亦不能主動作出調查。監警會可以做的只是審視警隊轄下投訴警察課作出的調查(這種調查實在難以被視為具備獨立性),並可向警務處處長作出沒有約束力的意見及建議。當監警會及投訴警察課未能就決定達成一致意見,將由行政長官作出最後決定。由此可見,監警會的權力非常有限。如監警會的決定被行政長官推翻,可能會進一步摧毀監警會原來已經相當脆弱的職能。

4.  正如終審法庭鄧楨常任法官於監警會五週年的研討會中指出:「現實與社會觀感可能不盡相同,致力去改善社會觀感乃是一項持續的追求。」因此,法政匯思促請政府提高委任監警會委員過程的透明度,並且增加監警會權力,以強化監警會對警隊不當行為的制衡權力以及監警會的獨立性。

5.  法政匯思相信「公義必須履行,而且更要有目共睹」。我們寄望投訴警察課、監警會及行政長官能秉承同一理念,堅持守護監警會的獨立和專業,令監警會能真正擔當監察警隊的角色。

法政匯思 2015年7月23日

“Not only must Justice be done; it must also be seen to be done.”

1.    On 10 July 2015, the Independent Police Complaints Council (“IPCC”) has decided by a majority of 12-6 that the complaint against Superintendent Franklin Chu King-wai, for assaulting pedestrians on 26 November 2014 in Mongkok is substantiated. On 18 July 2015, it was reported that the Complaints Against Police Office (“CAPO”) disagreed with the IPCC and counter-suggested that the decisions regarding the alleged assault should be amended as “Not Fully Substantiated” and the allegation of abuse of power as “Substantiated other than report”.

2.    In reply to the media, the secretary of the IPCC stated that the CAPO raised some new viewpoints on the matter. Therefore, the secretary suggested to the members of the IPCC to convene a meeting to decide whether it is necessary to revisit the case for further discussion or to vote again on the matter on 20 July 2015. On 22 July 2015, the IPCC rightly upheld its decision and rejected the request to re-evaluate its decision.

3.    PLG notes that the IPCC does not have the power of directing prosecution, investigation or even disciplinary actions against complained police officers, or conduct investigation themselves. What it can do is to review the investigation carried out by the CAPO, a subordinate department of the police force, which can hardly be seen to be independent for its purpose, and put forward non-binding opinions and recommendations to the Commissioner of Police and the Chief Executive for his final decision if the CAPO and the IPCC cannot agree with each other on a decision. The IPCC is hence regrettably weak. If IPCC’s decision is reversed by the Chief Executive, it may further sabotage the already tenuous function of the IPCC of making a statement.

4.    As Mr Justice Robert Tang Ching noted at the symposium of the fifth anniversary of the IPCC, “Reality and public perception may differ. What can be done to improve public perception is a continuing quest.” Therefore, PLG urges the Administration to improve checks and balances against police impropriety by making the appointments process of the members of the IPCC more transparent and widening the power of the IPCC to strengthen its independence.

5.    PLG believes that “Not only must Justice be done; it must also be seen to be done.”.  We express our hope that the CAPO, the IPCC and the Chief Executive also share the same belief and stand firmly to safeguard the independence and professionalism of the IPCC, so that it can truly fulfil its role of monitoring the police properly.

Progressive Lawyers Group 23 July 2015

Statement originally appeared in Stand News on 23 July 2015