********************************************
Following is a question by Professor Hon Joseph Lee and a written reply by the Secretary for Security, Mr Lai Tung-kwok, in the Legislative Council today (November 12):
Question:
The Independent Police Complaints Council Ordinance (Cap. 604) (the Ordinance) came into operation on June 1, 2009 and the then existing Independent Police Complaints Council (IPCC) was also incorporated into a statutory body on the same day, with its Chinese name changed. The functions of IPCC are to ensure that complaints against the Police are handled in a fair, impartial, effective and transparent manner, and to advise on improvement to police procedures to enhance service quality and public accountability. In this connection, will the Government inform this Council:
(1) given that section 8(1)(c) of the Ordinance provides that IPCC may identify any fault or deficiency in any practice or procedure adopted by the police force that has led to or might lead to reportable complaints, and make recommendations (as IPCC considers appropriate) to the Commissioner of Police (Commissioner) or the Chief Executive or both of them in respect of such practice or procedure, whether it knows, since the establishment of the statutory IPCC, the situations under which the aforesaid provision was invoked to identify the related faults or deficiencies, as well as the number of times in which recommendations were made to the Commissioner or the Chief Executive under that provision and the details of such recommendations; whether there were recommendations not accepted by the Commissioner; if so, of the reasons for the recommendations not being accepted;
(2) if it knows (i) the procedures adopted by IPCC for examining the practice or procedure of the police force in accordance with the aforesaid provision (e.g. site inspections and interviews with the officers concerned, etc.) and the number of times for which each of these procedures was adopted, and (ii) whether IPCC has encountered difficulties in adopting such procedures; if IPCC has encountered difficulties, of the details and the reasons for that;
(3) given that section 20 of the Ordinance provides that IPCC may, at any time after an investigation report has been submitted by the Commissioner under section 17 of the Ordinance, interview the person(s) concerned for the purpose of considering the report, whether it knows, since the establishment of the statutory IPCC, if any police officer (including complainees or witnesses, etc.) has refused to be interviewed by IPCC; if so, of the relevant figures and reasons for refusal, and whether the authorities will consider relaying such situations to the Commissioner and requesting improvement; if they will, the details; if they will not, the reasons for that; and
(4) given an upward trend in the number of complaints against the Police recently, whether the authorities have plans to enhance the image of IPCC and promote public awareness of IPCC in order to enhance its recognition, so that IPCC can monitor the Police more effectively; if they have such plans, of the details?
Reply:
President,
With the enactment of the Independent Police Complaints Council Ordinance (the Ordinance) on June 1, 2009, the Independent Police Complaints Council (IPCC) came into operation as an independent statutory body on the same day. Its daily operation, manpower arrangement and financial management are totally independent of the Government. There is a separate head of expenditure for IPCC (Head 121) in the Government's Estimates, with the Secretary-General of IPCC as the Controlling Officer. Since 2009, the Government has provided IPCC with additional annual resources and additional posts for IPCC's better discharge of its statutory function of monitoring the Police in their handling of complaints.
The Ordinance provides expressly a legal basis for a two-tier police complaints handling system. While specifying the functions, power and operation of IPCC under the above system, the Ordinance stipulates that the Police shall provide necessary assistance to IPCC and comply with the requirements set by IPCC under the Ordinance.
The Administration's reply to Professor Hon Joseph Lee's question is as follows:
(1) and (2) The Complaints Against Police Office (CAPO) has submitted over 15 000 investigation reports on reportable complaints to IPCC for examination since the latter's inception as a statutory body in June 2009. In the process of examining and endorsing investigations into reportable complaints, IPCC has from time to time, made recommendations on deficiency in practice or procedure adopted by the Police that, in its view, has led to or might lead to reportable complaints. For the purpose of complaint prevention and continuous enhancement of police service quality, CAPO studies and follows up all advice provided by IPCC, and accepts recommendations that may help improve the Force's practice, procedures and service quality, such as procedures for issuing illegal parking tickets and handling found property containing personal data, modification of procedures in notifying victims of traffic accidents for progress of the case and court hearing, installation of telephones with recording system in report rooms, and upgrading of close circuit television systems at police stations. For certain recommendations involving greater complexity or different police units, other departments or organisations, e.g. cases concerning notification and investigation of cash missing from ATM and arrangements for Police to interview persons still under their custody in hospital, CAPO needs a longer time for in-depth deliberation with IPCC, relevant police units and other departments or organisations. Advice of the Department of Justice may also be sought where necessary. CAPO does not have any statistics on the number of recommendations made by IPCC under section 8(1)(c) of the Ordinance, nor does it have any statistical data relating to the particulars of such recommendations.
(3) According to CAPO, a total of 32 police officers were invited by IPCC for interviews from June 2009 to October 2014 during its examination of the investigation reports on reportable complaints submitted by CAPO. Among them, 27 attended the interviews, whereas five were not subsequently interviewed by IPCC. Of those five officers, two were complainees whom IPCC, after interviewing the complainants of the cases concerned, had decided that no further interviews were necessary. The other three were invited to be witnesses, of whom two had left the Force before IPCC extended its invitations. As regards the remaining officer, since his testimony was similar to that of another officer who IPCC had intended to interview, IPCC eventually decided to meet with the latter only.
(4) Annual figures of reportable complaint cases received by CAPO between 2009 and 2013 were as follows:
2009 2010 2011 2012 2013
--------------------------------------------------
Number of 4 231 3 271 2 762 2 373 2 421
reportable
complaint cases
received by CAPO
each year
We understand that, IPCC, since its inception, has been deploying resources to enhance public awareness of its functions and public confidence in the two-tier police complaints handling system. A Publicity and Survey Committee was set up under IPCC to examine and advise on IPCC's publicity programmes. We note that in recent years IPCC has been committed to strengthening liaison with various stakeholders and augmenting public awareness of its role through videos and mini TV series, IPCC Quarterly Newsletters, and media conferences.
Ends/Wednesday, November 12, 2014
Issued at HKT 15:54
NNNN
