Hong Kong High Court Rules for Independent Mechanisms To Be Set up To Deal With Complaints Against Police Officers

Must Read

Transfer of Winding-up Proceedings Allowed Under S. 434, Restrictions Under 2016 Rules To Not Apply: Allahabad High Court

This appeal relates to the question of transfer of winding-up proceeding from the High Court (Company Court) to the...

Constitutional Court of South Africa Declares Provisions of Domestic Workers’ Injury Compensation Legislation To Be Unconstitutional

The Constitutional Court of South Africa in Sylvia Mahlangu v Minister of Labour , declared parts of the Compensation...

Bail Granted Under Section 167(2) CrPC Can Be Cancelled Under Section 439(2) CrPC: Supreme Court

The Supreme Court held that the right of default bail of the Accused can be cancelled under Section 439(2)...

Authority Cannot Interfere With Legal Heir Certificate When There Are No Issues Between 2 Wives: Madras High Court

The petition, filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India in Madras High Court. The case of Lakshmi Jagannathan v....

Kerala High Court Dismisses Petition Challenging Notification of Bar Council on Spot Admission

On 23rd November 2020, the Kerala High Court involving a single bench judge of the Honourable Smt. Justice P.V....

Death in Police Custody Requires Post-Mortem: Madras High Court

The petition, filed under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code in Madras High Court. The case of S....

Follow us

The present suit was brought by a journalist association because of the police brutality that the protestors faced in the protests against the China extradition bill. The protests led to many arrests and violations which caused widespread concern about the mechanism used to resolve such complaints. 

Background 

Major public order events in Hong Kong have caused the complaints against the police officers to rise in number. The case was heard in the Hong Kong High Court on the accusations that the mechanism for handling complaints on police officers breaches the rights under the Bill of Rights. The suit was bought by the Hong Kong Journalists Association against the Commissioner of Police and the Secretary of Justice. The allegation is of police brutality against the protesters who had gathered to protest the extradition bill.

Violation of the Bill of Rights

Section 3 of the bill of rights states that “No one must be subjected to torture or cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment…”. The main contention is that section 3 of the BOR is absolute and non-degradable. This essentially means that these rights cannot be forgone in any kind of emergencies at no cost. Under article 7 of the BOR, there is a procedural obligation on the part of the government if there are any violations of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), for the prompt investigation of any breach by the state agents. 

Structural Complexities

The current police force in Hong Kong has a two-tier system for managing and handling the complaints against the officers. The complaints against police office (CAPO) and then the complaints lie before the Independent Police Complaints Council (IPCC). The protests in Hong Kong have led to a floodgate of complaints since early 2019. To deal with this, the police force and the CAPO have laid down several special investigation teams. The IPCC is an independent statutory body which overlooks the handling of the complaints. The council has powers to observe, monitor and to advise the commissioner. The CAPO’s investigation reports are reviewable by the IPCC. Nut the procedural obstruction is that there is no authority of the IPCC to overturn the decision that has been passed by the CAPO.

Court’s Decision 

The court stated that the two-tier mechanism that is present in Hong Kong to deal with complaints failed the requirements of an independent investigation system. The court also went into the aspect of police officers having conspicuous and visible identification numbers or marks while carrying out duties. It held that this would not directly harm their identities but should be done given the transparency and the ease of investigation. It ruled against the government and asked for it to establish a mechanism with all requirements.

https://www.jurist.org/news/2020/11/hong-kong-court-rules-government-must-establish-independent-mechanism-for-complaints-against-police/ 


Libertatem.in is now on Telegram. Follow us for regular legal updates and judgment from courts. Follow us on Google News, InstagramLinkedInFacebook & Twitter. You can subscribe to our Weekly Email Updates. You can also contribute stories like this and help us spread awareness for a better society. Submit Your Post Now.

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

Latest News

Transfer of Winding-up Proceedings Allowed Under S. 434, Restrictions Under 2016 Rules To Not Apply: Allahabad High Court

This appeal relates to the question of transfer of winding-up proceeding from the High Court (Company Court) to the NCLT.  Facts M/s. Girdhar Trading Company, 2nd...

Constitutional Court of South Africa Declares Provisions of Domestic Workers’ Injury Compensation Legislation To Be Unconstitutional

The Constitutional Court of South Africa in Sylvia Mahlangu v Minister of Labour , declared parts of the Compensation for Occupational Injuries and Diseases...

Bail Granted Under Section 167(2) CrPC Can Be Cancelled Under Section 439(2) CrPC: Supreme Court

The Supreme Court held that the right of default bail of the Accused can be cancelled under Section 439(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code. Facts...

Authority Cannot Interfere With Legal Heir Certificate When There Are No Issues Between 2 Wives: Madras High Court

The petition, filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India in Madras High Court. The case of Lakshmi Jagannathan v. The Tahsildar, Tambaram Taluk, Chennai. was...

Kerala High Court Dismisses Petition Challenging Notification of Bar Council on Spot Admission

On 23rd November 2020, the Kerala High Court involving a single bench judge of the Honourable Smt. Justice P.V. Asha heard the case of...

Death in Police Custody Requires Post-Mortem: Madras High Court

The petition, filed under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code in Madras High Court. The case of S. Prema v. The Superintendent of...

Supreme Court Sets Aside High Court Order and states “Liberty of a Citizen cannot be taken away in the Absence of Lawyer”

In the case of Parveen v. State of Haryana, the Hon’ble Supreme Court observed that “a citizen’s liberty cannot be taken away”. This observation...

Revised Gratuity Ceiling Notified by Central Government Applicable To All Establishments Irrespective of Whether Controlled by the State or Centre: Tripura High Court

In the case of Sri Tapas Guha vs Tripura Tea Development Corporation Ltd. and others, a single-judge bench comprising of Hon’ble Justice Akil Kureshi...

Madras High Court Dismisses Tax Case Appeal by OPG Energy Pvt. Ltd.

The OPG Energy Pvt. Ltd. filed an appeal under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961. It was filed against an order passed...

Jharkhand High Court Disposes of Criminal Revision Petition Against the Judgment Passed by the Learned Sessions Judge With Modification

A criminal revision petition against the Judgment dated 23.07.2014 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, West Singhbhum at Chaibasa in Criminal Appeal No.49/2014 was...

More Articles Like This

- Advertisement -