*********************************************************
Following is a question by the Hon Leung Yiu-chung and a reply by the Secretary for Security, Mr Lai Tung-kwok, in the Legislative Council today (December 16):
Question:
Since September last year, more than one thousand people who participated in the "Umbrella Movement" and related public order events have had their personal information jotted down, or have been arrested or prosecuted by the Police. It has been reported that some of the people charged with the offence of assaulting police officers were able to prove their innocence in court by themselves with video footages found on the Internet, and such footages have revealed that the testimonies given by the police officers concerned were not true. Some members of the public have queried that these police officers have testified dishonestly in court, causing the people who participated in public order events being prosecuted unnecessarily. In this connection, will the Government inform this Council:
(1) regarding those cases relating to the "Umbrella Movement", of the number of cases since January this year in which the judge alleged the police officers concerned of having testified dishonestly during the trials;
(2) whether it has taken disciplinary actions against such police officers who were alleged by the judge of having testified dishonestly; if it has, of the details; if not, the reasons for that; and
(3) of the number of people prosecuted in such cases in which the police officers were alleged by the judge of having testified dishonestly, together with a breakdown by the occupation and age of such people; whether it has assessed the losses in terms of time and money suffered by such people because of the cases; if it has assessed, of the outcome; whether the authorities will pay compensation to such people; if they will, of the details; if not, the reasons for that?
Reply:
President,
My consolidated reply to Hon Leung Yiu-chung's question is as follows:
Under the criminal justice system in Hong Kong, there is a difference between the test adopted by police officers when effecting arrest, the approach adopted by the Department of Justice (DoJ) in deciding whether prosecution should be made, and the principles adopted by the court at the trial and when giving a verdict.
In respect of the Police, police officers are entitled to effect an arrest if they have a reasonable suspicion that the person in question has committed a relevant offence. In handling prosecution work, prosecutors of DoJ must in accordance with the Prosecution Code first consider whether there is sufficient evidence and next consider and balance all issues of public interest before deciding whether prosecution should be made. A prosecution shall not be commenced or continued unless there is a reasonable prospect of conviction. As for the court, judges will consider all evidence relevant to the case when hearing a criminal case. Such evidence would include evidence put forward by the prosecution and defence, circumstantial evidence and testimonies by witnesses etc. Judges will deliver a guilty verdict only if the offence is proved beyond reasonable doubt.
Based on the above, the mere fact that an arrested person is not subsequently charged with any offence in certain cases does not necessarily mean that the Police have made a wrongful arrest; nor does it necessarily follow that the prosecutors have failed in their duty to commence prosecution. And as the court adheres to the principles of "beyond reasonable doubt" and "the benefit of doubt should go to defendants" while handling criminal cases, the mere acquittal of a defendant does not necessarily mean that there is a problem with the arrest, prosecution or testimonies by certain witnesses. A defendant, if convicted, may lodge an appeal. This is indeed a manifestation of how the independent judicial system and rule of law in Hong Kong safeguard the rights of the public.
In his question, Hon Leung queried that "the testimonies given by the police officers concerned were not true" and that "some members of the public have queried that these police officers have testified dishonestly in court, causing the people who participated in public order events being prosecuted unnecessarily". I do not agree to such allegations.
Same as all people who testify during court hearings, a police officer shall give sworn evidence which he is satisfied to be true and accurate in court. Under Section 31 of the Crimes Ordinance (Cap. 200), if any person lawfully sworn as a witness, either generally or in a particular judicial proceeding, wilfully makes a statement in any judicial proceeding which is material in that proceeding and which he knows to be false or does not believe to be true, he shall be guilty of perjury and shall be liable on conviction upon indictment to imprisonment for seven years and to a fine.
If in certain cases, the court considers that there is prima facie evidence suggesting perjury, the court may refer the case to DoJ for follow-up. The Police's position is that after receiving DoJ's instruction, the Police will seriously handle any case of non-compliance where a police officer is suspected to have committed perjury. Depending on the investigation results, the officer concerned may be liable to criminal responsibility and subject to disciplinary actions.
If a judge considers that the testimonies given by a police officer in court are not credible, he may also advise DoJ to refer the case for follow-up by the Complaints Against Police Office of the Police and inform the court in writing of the results of the case after it has been dealt with. The Police do not maintain any statistics of cases in which "the judge alleged the police officers concerned had testified dishonestly during the trials" or related breakdowns as raised in the question.
President, during the illegal "Occupy Movement" last year, numerous protesters gathered to hold large-scale unlawful assemblies at various places in Hong Kong. Persistent and large-scale crowd confrontations and even violent incidents also took place at many locations. During the incident, 955 persons were arrested by the Police for various alleged offences, and another 48 persons were arrested after the illegal occupation incident. As at November 30 this year, a total of 216 persons have undergone, are undergoing or will undergo judicial proceedings. Amongst them, 177 persons have gone through the judicial process and 114 of them have to bear legal consequences, including 74 who were convicted and 40 who were bound over upon conclusion of court proceedings.
As we all know, large-scale assemblies will end up in very chaotic situations when incidents occur. The first priority of police officers is to swiftly take control of the situation, restore public order, and minimise casualties and property loss. During the 79-day illegal "Occupy Movement" last year, police officers were on duty for long durations every day. It is thus understandable when objectively speaking certain officers would not be able to recall accurately certain details of how incidents happened at that time during persistently chaotic situations. As a matter of fact, the Police have an established mechanism to review from time to time their arrangements for handling large-scale public order events. The Police have already strengthened the capability of each Headquarters and Regional Response Contingent in collecting evidence on-the-spot during operations, including equipment and training. Equipped with video-recording devices, officers responsible for gathering evidence can collect evidence of offences committed by lawbreakers during operations by such means as video-recording, with a view to stepping up the effectiveness of investigation, prosecution and law enforcement.
Thank you, President.
Ends/Wednesday, December 16, 2015
Issued at HKT 17:38
NNNN
