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.