HKJA Loses Legal Fight Over Alleged Police Abuse

The High Court on Monday dismissed a challenge by the Hong Kong Journalists Association (HKJA) over claims that police acted unlawfully by failing to make sure the media could carry out their duties while reporting on protests.

Judge Anderson Chow said the allegations raised by the HKJA simply could not be dealt with in the judicial review, even though they were reasonably arguable.

The HKJA had submitted 13 statements by journalists saying they were ill-treated by officers during anti-government protests, including being shot with rubber bullets, hit with batons, and targeted with tear gas at close range.

The group asked the court to treat these statements as "prima facie" evidence or "assumed facts".

But the judge said such an approach was simply unworkable and the allegations raised could not be solved in this judicial review. "The suggested exercise would, in any event, serve little or no practical utility," he said.

Chow explained that the HKJA and police had not agreed on any assumed facts, and it would be inappropriate for the court to simply adopt them and make a declaration that the force had acted unlawfully.

He went on to say that even if the allegations were proven to be true, a declaration by the court would “achieve no real purpose” as it would simply be stating the obvious.

"The critical question is whether the allegations can be proved … These are not matters which can be determined in the present application for judicial review," Chow wrote.

He added that the police’s duty to facilitate reporting or distinguish journalists from protesters is not absolute and officers also need to consider their duty to maintain law and order and the lawfulness of the conduct of protesters and journalists.

Chow said although he was tempted to lay down some legal guidelines to minimise unnecessary conflicts between officers and reporters at protests, it would be wrong to decide matters in a vacuum, and misleading to make declarations in unqualified terms.

He stressed that his ruling should not be seen as stating whether police had or had not acted unlawfully, as this could only be determined by a full investigation.