街頭戰爭告一段落 執法安排應該「復常」

 <轉載自2020年11月20日 明報 社評>

去年反修例風暴，香港陷入「街頭戰爭」狀態，網上「起底」頻頻，防暴警察執勤不展示警員編號，引起爭議，昨天高等法院裁定，有關做法不符合《人權法》。警員未有展示獨一無二的身分識別標記，有礙投訴處理制度運作，警方認為非常時期需要非常處理，高院認為即使情况緊急，亦不能凌駕《人權法》。過去一年，有關反修例風暴的案件，上訴裁決屢有反覆，法律程序一日未完，仍有變卦可能，警方和律政司會否就今次裁決提出上訴，有待觀察。無論如何，時至今天，暴力鬥爭已經走入死胡同，「街頭戰爭」告一段落，社會不應停留在當時的狀態，警方執法安排亦應「復常」，不展示警員編號是偏離常態的做法，至於現行監警機制不足之處，亦需好好檢視。

高院裁決掀議論 上訴與否待分曉

警察通例有關制服的部分，並未明確規定警方速龍小隊和防暴警察執勤時，一定要展示警員編號或其他個人身分記認，多名市民申請司法覆核，質疑反修例風暴期間有警察執勤不展示警員編號的做法，高院裁定部分申請人勝訴。

高院裁決的重點，放在保障投訴警員的權利。判辭提到，當警員蒙面執勤，他們有需要出示一些可辨別身分的記認，若無獨一無二識別方法，對警察的投訴將難以處理。法官認為，雖然警員公開身分後，可能遭惡意「起底」，然而保持投訴處理制度有效運作，比起警員擔心被「起底」更重要。判辭表示，警務處允許警員不公開清楚展示警員編號，令投訴機制系統不完善，至於投訴警察課和監警會處理投訴的制度，亦未能滿足《人權法》要求，因為投訴警察課並非獨立機關，監警會則欠缺調查等權力。

高院今次裁決，並非針對個別警員；法庭裁定警員未有妥善讓人識別，亦不代表反修例風暴期間，警方執法或拘捕行動的合法性，有受到挑戰的空間。當然，任何個案都要走畢所有法律程序，始有終極定論。過去一年，很多有關反修例風暴的案件，原審裁決上訴後都被推翻。舉例說，去年政府引用《緊急法》，制定《禁蒙面法》，泛民議員提出司法覆核。高院法官一度裁定政府做法不符合《基本法》，《禁蒙面法》亦屬違憲，上訴庭後來卻推翻了高院原訟庭裁決，裁定港府做法合憲、《禁蒙面法》部分合憲。案件最後如何作結，還看終審法院的裁決。今次有關執勤不展示警員編號的覆核裁決，警方和律政司會否上訴、往後有何發展，仍需拭目以待。

反修例風暴是香港近半個世紀最嚴重的亂局，暴力衝突愈演愈烈，嚴重違法事件頻生，不同立場的人都慨嘆，香港偏離了常態，變得很陌生。一個正常的香港，街頭不應出現汽油彈，亦不應該有催淚煙，可是去年香港差不多有一半時間，都處於「街頭戰爭」狀態。警員執勤身分識別愈透明愈好，在正常社會狀態下，相信絕大多數人都會認同，然而面對反修例風暴這個非常時期，警方明顯傾向認為要以非常手段應付。

非常時期已成過去 執法可脫「戰時思維」

反修例風暴爆發後，網上「起底」一度非常猖獗，雖然去年10月底高院終頒下禁制令，然而仍有網民千方百計公開警員及其家屬的個人資料。防暴警察執勤不展示警員編號，是非常時期下一個偏離常態兼有爭議的做法，不同人看待角度不一，警方認為可保障警員及其家人免受網上「起底」滋擾，反對者認為此舉有如為警員濫用暴力開綠燈，當然也不能排除小撮激進分子認為此舉妨礙他們對付警方。高院今次裁決，傾向從保障人權的角度出發，認為必須優先保障投訴警員的權利，可以想像，有些人會認為，當時警方面對如此惡劣的執法環境，法官為何不多考慮前線警員身分一旦暴露，不僅自身有危險，家人亦可能遭殃。有關法律觀點的爭拗，應該由司法機構處理，公眾可以理性討論裁決，惟不可踰越界線，變成肆意攻擊法官。

去年這個時期，反修例風暴正處高峰，一些人仍堅信暴力鬥爭是出路。一年後的今天，即使是當日最激進的一群，似乎亦意識到暴力鬥爭行不通；因為干犯暴力罪行而入獄者，人生也絕不會因此「變得更精彩」。當然，這不是說香港社會已經真正復常，昨天中大有百計畢業生未經校方批准，在校內集會遊行，有人展示港獨標語，警方國安處展開調查，反映社會鬥爭張力從未消失，惟無可否認，「街頭戰爭」已經告一段落，暴力已被遏止，網上起底滋擾亦已沉寂下來，警方一些執法安排，再無必要以「戰時思維」去考慮。

不管警方是否就高院裁決提出上訴，反修例風暴期間一些「非常做法」，是時候要調整，論透明度，執勤警員公開展示身分識別標記，一定比不展示理想。監警會主席認為，判辭有關監警會職權的說法存在偏差，不過有關監警會權力不足、不夠獨立等問題，早在反修例風暴前已有很多人談論，當局應正視問題，檢視現行投訴警方機制，謀求改善。

High Court's ruling on police not displaying their IDs

During last year's anti-amendment storm, riot police provoked controversy by not displaying their ID badges when they were on duty. Yesterday (November 19) the High Court ruled that such a practice was in violation of the Hong Kong Bill of Rights. The court argues that, when policemen fail to display unique identification, they are hindering the operations of the mechanism for handling complaints. The High Court is of the view that even the presence of an emergency does not mean that the Bill of Rights can be overridden.

The focus of the High Court's ruling is on the protection of the right to lodge complaints against policemen. In his judgement, the judge mentions that when policemen cover their faces when on duty, it is necessary for them to display what can show their identities. Without such unique identification, it will be difficult to handle complaints against policemen. The judge believes that police officers might be "doxed" maliciously if their identities are made public. However, keeping the mechanism for handling complaints effective is more important than addressing the worry that policemen might be "doxed". In his judgement, he says that by allowing policemen not to display their ID numbers publicly, the Hong Kong Police have made the mechanism for handling complaints incomplete. As for the complaint mechanism made up of the Complaints Against Police Office (CAPO) and the Independent Police Complaints Council (IPCC), the judge believes that the mechanism is unable to fulfil the requirements of the Bill of Rights, as the former is not an independent body while the latter lacks investigative and other powers.

Over the past year, many court cases involving the anti-amendment movement have seen the original rulings being overridden. For example, the government invoked the Emergency Regulations Ordinance to promulgate the Prohibition on Face Covering Regulation. Pro-democracy lawmakers filed for judicial review, and the High Court ruled that the government's action was in violation of the Basic Law and the Prohibition on Face Covering Regulation was unconstitutional. The Court of Appeal, however, overruled the decision of the Court of First Instance, ruling that the government's action and parts of the Prohibition on Face Covering Regulation were indeed constitutional. The final decision is to be made by the Court of Final Appeal, which will determine how the case will go. It remains to be seen whether the police and Justice Department will appeal the ruling on the judicial review case about police not displaying their IDs when they were on duty and how the case will develop later.

When it comes to on-duty police's identities, the greater the transparency the better. It is believed that most people will agree with this in normal social circumstances. The High Court's ruling is made mostly from the perspective of the protection of human rights, as the court argues that protecting the right to lodge complaints against police should be given priority. It is imaginable that some people will ask why the judge does not give more consideration to the danger faced by police and their families if their identities are exposed when police are facing such hostile law-enforcement environments. Arguments about legal points of view should be handled by the judiciary. The public can discuss the ruling rationally. But they should not overstep the boundaries and launch vituperative attacks on the judge.

The chairman of the IPCC has said that the parts of the High Court's judgement concerning the authority of the IPCC are not accurate. That said, the IPCC's lack of power and independence was much discussed even before the anti-amendment storm. The authorities must pay proper regard to the problem, evaluate the existing mechanism for handling complaints against the police, and seek improvement.

街頭戰爭告一段落 執法安排應該「復常」

去年反修例風暴，防暴警察執勤不展示警員編號，引起爭議，昨天高等法院裁定，有關做法不符合《人權法》。警員未有展示獨一無二的身分識別標記，有礙投訴處理制度運作，高院認為即使情况緊急，亦不能凌駕《人權法》。

高院裁決的重點，放在保障投訴警員的權利。判辭提到，當警員蒙面執勤，他們有需要出示一些可辨別身分的記認，若無獨一無二識別方法，對警察的投訴將難以處理。法官認為，雖然警員公開身分後，可能遭惡意「起底」，然而保持投訴處理制度有效運作，比起警員擔心被「起底」更重要。判辭表示，警務處允許警員不公開清楚展示警員編號，令投訴機制系統不完善，至於投訴警察課和監警會處理投訴的制度，亦未能滿足《人權法》要求，因為投訴警察課並非獨立機關，監警會則欠缺調查等權力。

過去一年，很多有關反修例風暴的案件，原審裁決上訴後都被推翻。舉例說，去年政府引用《緊急法》，制定《禁蒙面法》，泛民議員提出司法覆核。高院法官一度裁定政府做法不符合《基本法》，《禁蒙面法》亦屬違憲，上訴庭後來卻推翻了高院原訟庭裁決，裁定港府做法合憲、《禁蒙面法》部分合憲。案件最後如何作結，還看終審法院的裁決。今次有關執勤不展示警員編號的覆核裁決，警方和律政司會否上訴、往後有何發展，仍需拭目以待。

警員執勤身分識別愈透明愈好，在正常社會狀態下，相信絕大多數人都會認同。高院今次裁決，傾向從保障人權的角度出發，認為必須優先保障投訴警員的權利，可以想像，有些人會認為，當時警方面對如此惡劣的執法環境，法官為何不多考慮前線警員身分一旦暴露，不僅自身有危險，家人亦可能遭殃。有關法律觀點的爭拗，應該由司法機構處理，公眾可以理性討論裁決，惟不可踰越界線，變成肆意攻擊法官。

監警會主席認為，判辭有關監警會職權的說法有偏差，但有關監警會權力不足、不夠獨立等問題，早在反修例風暴前已有很多人談論，當局應正視問題，檢視現行投訴警方機制，謀求改善。