<轉載自2019年12月12日 明報 社評>
監警會早前委聘5名國際專家，協助審視反修例風暴警方行動及工作，未料監警會中期報告尚未出爐，卻率先傳出國際專家小組退出的消息。雖然監警會強調專家小組並非請辭，然而外界觀感卻是另一回事。監警會委聘外國專家，原意是增強公信力，這次專家小組「告退」，再次反映監警會在權力和制度方面存在重大缺失，突顯獨立調查委員會的重要。反修例風暴對香港的衝擊前所未見，以往「行之有效」做法，未必能有效處理眼前問題，政府需要面對監警會獨立性和權力不足的事實，深入改革，讓監警會擁有獨立調查權，否則很難得到公眾信任。
監警會權力不足 國際專家小組「告退」
反修例風暴持續半年，警方執法成為爭議焦點之一，「警暴」指控不絕，行政長官林鄭月娥9月初宣布撤回修例，以及由監警會審視警方6月以來的執法行動。監警會除了加入新成員，亦成立國際專家小組，協助審視與大型公眾活動相關的警務工作及程序，提供專業建議。監警會委聘的5名國際專家來頭不小，當中包括曾經處理2011年英國騷亂的英國警察監察局前總督察Sir Denis O'Connor。
監警會成員由行政長官任命，反對者認為監警會被親政府人士把持，當局委聘外國專家協助，希望提高監警會工作的公信力，問題是監警會制度「先天不足」，就算找來再權威的專家也無法彌補缺陷。上月有國際專家小組成員提及，監警會調查權力及範圍存在結構限制，阻礙取得連貫及有代表性的證據，必須提高能力，包括可以迅速獲得警方及其他組織的重要文件，以及傳召目擊證人取得證供。昨天《華爾街日報》和法新社報道，國際專家小組認為，監警會的權力及獨立調查能力有重大不足，未符港人要求，小組無法就有關問題與監警會取得共識，決定「告退」。
究竟專家小組是否「辭職」，各方理解不一。監警會認為，專家小組已提供意見讓監警會撰寫報告，「現階段工作結束」，小組現時是「先退出工作」而不是請辭，監警會主席仍與小組保持緊密接觸。根據報道內容，專家小組所用字眼是「stand aside」，若要咬文嚼字，當然可以斟酌一番，然而小組的說法，明顯反映他們與監警會意見不合，這次告退就算不是辭職，明顯有劃清界線意味。
監警會一再表示，《監警會條例》並未賦予監警會調查權力，他們必須根據法定權限工作，不過國際專家小組顯然認為，若不解決調查權力和範圍的結構限制，工作很難推展下去。小組表示，如果監警會增加所需權力並提供中期報告初稿，會繼續支持監警會。若將有關說法反過來看，小組似乎認為，雙方繼續合作的重要前提，是必須加強監警會權力。政府必須面對監警會獨立性和權力不足的現實，不能掩耳盜鈴。
「行之有效」舊規不管用 調查改革兩條腿走路
比起先進發達國家的監警機構，香港監警會的權力和制度設計明顯有所不及。以英國和加拿大為例，兩地監警機構均有獨立調查權。在英國，如果警方行動導致國民嚴重受傷或身亡，案件必須轉介監警機構調查；加拿大的監警機構更可直接處理投訴，並有蒐證等權力。反觀香港監警會並無獨立調查權，亦沒有權力傳召證人，不能直接處理市民投訴，一切由警隊投訴警察課負責跟進，之後再把「須匯報」投訴個案，向監警會提交調查報告。監警會只負責審視、觀察及覆檢警方對「須匯報」投訴個案的處理及調查。這樣的投訴處理機制，本質是由警方「自己人查自己人」，如果警方不積極配合提供資料，監警會很難有效跟進投訴。
香港監警制度存在重大缺陷，早已惹人詬病，反修例風暴更令問題顯著放大，很多人不信任警方，也不相信在現有監警制度下，投訴警方個案能得到公平處理。另外，監警會人手有限，也難以處理反修例風暴以來大量的警民衝突投訴個案。政府遲遲未有成立獨立調查委員會，理由之一是香港有「行之有效」的法定機制，處理涉及警方執法的投訴和爭議，應當按機制交由監警會審視。問題是監警會的制度設計，根本無法有效處理反修例風暴這種規模的警民衝突糾紛。以往所謂「行之有效」的做法不再管用，政府必須面對現實。
國際專家小組成員認為，監警會的權力及獨立調查能力，不足以應付近期事件的規模。監警會主席梁定邦亦認同，目前是時候改革監警會。反修例風暴以來，我們一直呼籲成立具有法定調查權力的獨立委員會，徹查風暴成因始末、從中汲取教訓，警方執法、示威暴力、外部勢力介入等議題，均應包羅其中。我們認為當局應該兩條腿走路，一邊設立獨立調查委員會，因應社會最關注的爭議，還原事實真相，推動社會和解；一邊參考外地先進經驗，改革監警機制，顯著加強監警會權力，重建公眾信任。
Reform of IPCC is unavoidable
FIVE international experts were earlier solicited by the Independent
Police Complaints Council (IPCC) for their assistance in the review of the
police's action and work on the anti-amendment movement. Though the interim
report has yet to be published, it has emerged that the panel of international
experts has left the IPCC. The IPCC has stressed that the panel did not resign,
but the public perceives the news differently.
The anti-amendment storm has gone on for half a year, and one of the
centres of controversy has been the police's law-enforcement actions. There has
been an endless string of accusations of ''police brutality''. In early
September chief executive Carrie Lam announced the withdrawal of the amendment
bill and that the IPCC would be tasked with reviewing the police's law
enforcement actions taken since June. Not only were new members added to the
IPCC, but a panel of international experts was also lined up to review the
police's work and the procedures they adopted concerning large-scale public
activities. The panel was also expected to provide its professional opinion for
the IPCC. The five international experts commissioned by the IPCC have
impressive backgrounds. One of them is Sir Denis O'Connor, the former UK chief
inspector of constabulary whose experience includes the handling of the 2011
riots in the UK.
The IPCC has more than once said that the Independent Police Complaints
Council Ordinance does not grant it the authority to investigate, and that it
has to act within its terms of reference. However, it is obvious that the panel
of international experts believes that it will be difficult to continue its
work unless the structural limits on the IPCC's term of reference and scope of
power are resolved. The panel says that it will continue to support the IPCC if
its authority is expanded sufficiently and it provides the panel with the first
draft of the interim report. This position can be interpreted in reverse: the
panel seems to think that an important prerequisite for their continued
cooperation is the enhancement of the IPCC's power. The government must face
the reality, i.e. the IPCC's lack of independence and power, squarely rather
than turn a blind eye to it.
In terms of authority and the system in which it is placed, the IPCC is
apparently inadequate compared with the police watchdogs of advanced nations.
Take the UK and Canada. In these two countries, the police watchdogs have
independent investigative power. In the UK, the case must be referred to the
watchdog for investigation if the police's actions result in serious injuries
or deaths. Canada's police watchdog even has the power to handle complaints directly
and collect evidence. The IPCC in Hong Kong, in contrast, has neither the power
of independent investigation nor the power to summon witnesses. It cannot
handle the public's complaints directly. All the matters have to be handled by
the Complaints and Internal Investigations Branch (C&IIB) of the police,
which will then submit investigative reports to the IPCC concerning those
''reportable complaints''. The IPCC is only responsible for reviewing,
observing and re-reviewing the police's handling and investigation of
''reportable'' complaints. Such a mechanism for handling complaints is in
nature ''police officers investigating themselves''. If the police do not
cooperate actively and provide the information, it will be difficult for the
IPCC to follow up on complaints effectively.
We believe that the authorities should take a two-pronged approach. On
the one hand, they should set up an independent commission of inquiry to
respond to controversies that society is most concerned about so as to piece
together the facts and promote social reconciliation. On the other hand, they
should reform the mechanism for monitoring the police force by studying more
sophisticated practices other regions have adopted. The IPCC's authority should
be strengthened considerably to restore public trust.
國際專家道不足 監警改革難迴避
監警會早前委聘5名國際專家，協助審視反修例風暴警方行動及工作，未料監警會中期報告尚未出爐，卻率先傳出國際專家小組退出的消息。雖然監警會強調專家小組並非請辭，然而外界觀感卻是另一回事。
反修例風暴持續半年，警方執法成為爭議焦點之一，「警暴」指控不絕，行政長官林鄭月娥9月初宣布撤回修例，以及由監警會審視警方6月以來的執法行動。監警會除了加入新成員，亦成立國際專家小組，協助審視與大型公眾活動相關的警務工作及程序，提供專業建議。監警會委聘的5名國際專家來頭不小，當中包括曾經處理2011年英國騷亂的英國警察監察局前總督察Sir Denis O'Connor。
監警會一再表示，《監警會條例》並未賦予監警會調查權力，他們必須根據法定權限工作，不過國際專家小組顯然認為，若不解決調查權力和範圍的結構限制，工作很難推展下去。小組表示，如果監警會增加所需權力並提供中期報告初稿，會繼續支持監警會。若將有關說法反過來看，小組似乎認為，雙方繼續合作的重要前提，是必須加強監警會權力。政府必須面對監警會獨立性和權力不足的現實，不能掩耳盜鈴。
比起先進發達國家的監警機構，香港監警會的權力和制度設計明顯有所不及。以英國和加拿大為例，兩地監警機構均有獨立調查權。在英國，如果警方行動導致國民嚴重受傷或身亡，案件必須轉介監警機構調查；加拿大的監警機構更可直接處理投訴，並有蒐證等權力。反觀香港監警會並無獨立調查權，亦沒有權力傳召證人，不能直接處理市民投訴，一切由警隊投訴警察課負責跟進，之後再把「須匯報」投訴個案，向監警會提交調查報告。監警會只負責審視、觀察及覆檢警方對「須匯報」投訴個案的處理及調查。這樣的投訴處理機制，本質是由警方「自己人查自己人」，如果警方不積極配合提供資料，監警會很難有效跟進投訴。
沒有留言:
張貼留言