The Hong Kong Police riot and speeding dragon squad some of the police officers in last year’s demonstration against the law repeatedly not to display the police number phenomenon, seven citizens and the Hong Kong Journalists Association previously asked the court to review the practice. In response, the Hong Kong High Court ruled on November 19 that the police’s failure to display police officer numbers violates the Hong Kong Bill of Rights Ordinance, and that the current police complaints mechanism overseen by the IPCC cannot properly discharge its duty to effectively investigate police complaints.
According to Ming Pao Daily News, Judge Chow Ka-ming handed down his judgment that day, pointing out that when masked police officers are deployed on duty, they are required to display some form of distinctive emblem in order to enable victims to effectively file complaints against police misconduct and to initiate legal action, including civil litigation and private prosecutions. He pointed out that the rights protected by Article 3 of the Hong Kong Bill of Rights Ordinance are absolute and non-derogable, and must be respected by the government and protected by the courts even in times of public crisis.
The judge considered the complaints against the police lodged by the applicants, Yeung Chi Chun, Chan Kung Shun, Benson Roux, Ng Hong Luen and the Hong Kong Journalists Association, emphasizing that it was not appropriate for the court to make findings of fact in relation to the complaints, but that the use of excessive force by the police, if substantiated, would violate Article 3 of the HKBORO and trigger the Government’s duty to investigate. He said that the sign does not have to be a police number (UI number), but the sign must be independent of each police officer, as well as placed in a conspicuous position, so that the subject and witnesses have a reasonable opportunity to identify individual police officers.
Judge Chou said that the mechanism for identifying police officers should not be implemented only by the internal procedures of the police, otherwise the subject will be completely, or to a large extent, at the mercy of the police, who will decide whether to take legal or disciplinary action against individual police officers. He cited cases in which the responsibility for investigating police misconduct lies with the government, and the investigation must be independent and function to identify the individual who is the subject of the complaint in order to pursue accountability, and the complaint must be dealt with promptly and reasonably; in this case, the investigation must be able to identify the police officer against whom the complaint of excessive force was filed.
As for the Hong Kong police speed and riot police officers were showing “Alpha ID” and action call sign for identification, Judge Chou described the number is not unique to individual police officers, some police officers even refused to show, or covered with objects, continued to point to the speed of police officers “Alpha ID “Displaying the number only on the back of the helmet makes it more difficult to effectively identify individual officers, and there is no evidence that the police took appropriate measures to ensure that the number was correctly displayed. There is also no evidence that the police took appropriate measures to ensure that officers displayed their numbers correctly. Regarding the police’s concern about the risk of being picked up (manhunt), he said that he fully understood the concern, but that the concern should not override the system for investigating police officers involved in violations of the Human Rights Act, and that the display of unique numbers or markings by police officers does not directly lead to being picked up.
Recent Comments