EN

司法覆核

(English) Basic Law Constitutional Challenges •
Election Petitions

難民法

(English) USM • Non-refoulement •
Convention Against Torture (CAT) • Right to Work

移民法

(English) Dependent & Employment Visas •
Residency & Right Of Abode • Deportation and Removal Order • Chinese Nationality

索償要求

(English) Unlawful Detention • Personal Injury

人口販運

(English) Forced Labour & Exploitation

歧視

(English) LGBTQI2S Rights •
Equal Opportunities • Employment

(English) Lam Sze Chun v Commissioner of Police, Hong Kong Police Force & The Independent Police Complaints Council (HCAL 133/2022)

(English) Lam Sze Chun v Commissioner of Police, Hong Kong Police Force & The Independent Police Complaints Council (HCAL 133/2022)

(English) On 3 November 2023, the Court of First Instance (“CFI”) handed down its judgment in Lam Sze Chun v Commissioner of Police, Hong Kong Police Force & The Independent Police Complaints Council [2023] HKCFI 34, ruling in favour of the Applicant and allowing the judicial review on some of the grounds.

In gist, the Court held that the ordinary meaning of “complain” applies in the Independent Police Complaints Council Ordinance (“IPCCO”) and hence, the Applicant’s complaint made to the Complaints Against Police Office (“CAPO”) ought to have been categorised as a “reportable complaint” from the outset, but not merely treated as a “request for service”. There is no inherent inconsistency between filing a complaint against the officer’s unsatisfactory service and making a request for a remedy at the same time. The Court also held that the CAPO had failed to explain to the Applicant the proper procedures and/or keep him informed of the progress of his complaint.

It also ruled that the Independent Police Complaints Council (“IPCC”) acted unlawfully by relaying the Applicant’s information, which was provided by the Applicant to IPCC only, to the CAPO. Hon Coleman J found that the Applicant has not consented to such relay of information, nor was the same necessary for the performance of IPCC’s functions.

Lastly and notably, it is held that the “Expression of Dissatisfaction” mechanism (“EDM”) is ultra vires because it abrogates the Commissioner’s duty to categorise complaints. Hon Coleman J is further of the opinion that “if the rationale for the introduction of the EDM is correct, …it is necessary for there to be a legislative amendment to put such a mechanism on a proper statutory footing within or as an additional facet to the existing statutory regime”.

We are grateful to have the assistance of Ms. Grace Chow of Temple Chambers (instructed by Daly & Associates) assigned by the Director of Legal Aid.

Click here for the full judgment and details of relief granted.

(English) Our website and its contents are provided for general information purposes only and nothing on this website or in its contents is intended to provide legal or other professional advice. We do not accept responsibility for loss which may arise from reliance on information or materials published on this website. If you wish to find out more about the information published, please contact us by email.
For the avoidance of doubt, contents of any other website which may be linked from this website are not maintained or controlled by this firm, and this firm will not be responsible for the content or accuracy thereof. Such Links to other websites do not constitute an endorsement by this firm of such websites or the information or other materials available thereon.

(English) Our website and its contents are provided for general information purposes only and nothing on this website or in its contents is intended to provide legal or other professional advice. We do not accept responsibility for loss which may arise from reliance on information or materials published on this website. If you wish to find out more about the information published, please contact us by email.
For the avoidance of doubt, contents of any other website which may be linked from this website are not maintained or controlled by this firm, and this firm will not be responsible for the content or accuracy thereof. Such Links to other websites do not constitute an endorsement by this firm of such websites or the information or other materials available thereon.