Submissions to the United Nations Committee Against Torture
in relation to the Report of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region under the
Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel,
Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment

May 2000

I. INTRODUCTION


Footnotes

  1. Article 20 of the CAT provides:
    1. If the Committee receives reliable information which appears to it to contain well-founded indications that torture is being systematically practiced in the territory of the State Party, the Committee shall invite that State Party to co-operate in the examination of the information and to this end to submit observations with regard to the information concerned.

    2. Taking into account any observations which may have been submitted by the State Party concerned, as well as any other relevant information available to it, the Committee may if it decided that this is warranted, designate one or more of its members to make a confidential inquiry and to report to the Committee urgently.

    3. If an inquiry is made in accordance with paragraph 2 of this article, the Committee shall seek the co-operation of the State Party concerned. In agreement with that State Party, such an inquiry may include a visit to its territory.

    4. After examining the findings of its member or members submitted in accordance with paragraph 1 to 4 of this article shall be confidential, and at all stages of the proceedings the co-operation of the State Party shall be sought. After such proceedings have been completed with regard to an inquiry made in accordance with paragraph 2, the Committee may, after consultations with the State Party concerned, decide to include a summary account of the results of the proceedings in its annual report made in accordance with article 24.
  2. Paragraph 1 of Article 30 of the CAT provides:
    1. Any dispute between two or more State Parties concerning the interpretation or application of this Convention which cannot be settled through negotiations shall, at the request of one of them, be submitted to arbitration. Of within six months from the date of the request for arbitration the parties are unable to agree on the organization of the arbitration, any one of those Parties may refer the dispute to the International Court of Justice by request in conformity with the Statute of the Court.
  3. Article 153 of the Basic Law of the HKSAR provides: (1) The application to the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region of international agreements to which the People's Republic of China is or becomes a party shall be decided by the Central People's Government, in accordance with the circumstances and needs of the Region, and after seeking the views of the government of the Region.
    (2) International agreements to which the People's Republic of China is not a party but which are implemented in Hong Kong may continue to be implemented in the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region. The Central People's Government shall, as necessary, authorize or assist the government of the Region to make appropriate arrangements for the application to the Region of other relevant international agreements.
  4. Article 28 of the Basic Law of the HKSAR provides: The freedom of the person of Hong Kong residents shall be inviolable. No Hong Kong resident shall be subjected to arbitrary or unlawful arrest, detention or imprisonment. Arbitrary or unlawful search of the body of any resident or deprivation or restriction of the freedom of the person shall be prohibited. Torture of any resident or arbitrary or unlawful deprivation of the life of any resident shall be prohibited.
  5. Article 39 of the Basic Law of the HKSAR provides: The provisions of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, The Convention on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, and the international labour conventions as applied to Hong Kong shall remain in force and shall be implemented through the laws of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region.
    The rights and freedoms enjoyed by Hong Kong residents shall not be restricted unless as prescribed by law. Such restrictions shall not contravene the provisions of the preceding paragraph of this Article.
  6. Article 7 of the ICCPR provides that: No one shall be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment. In particular, no one shall be subjected without his free consent to medical or scientific experimentation.
  7. Article 16 of the CAT provides:
    1. Each State Party shall undertake to prevent in any territory under its jurisdiction other acts of cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment which do not amount torture as defined in article 1, when such acts are committed by or at the instigation of or with the consent or acquiescence of a public official or other person acting in an official capacity. In particular, the obligations contained in articles 10, 11, 12 and 13 shall apply with the substitution for references to torture of references to other forms of cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.
    2. The provisions of this Convention are without prejudice to the provisions of any other international instrument or national law which prohibits cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment or which relates to extradition or expulsion.
  8. Emphasis added.
  9. Article 1 of the CAT provides:
    1. For the purposes of this Convention, the term "torture" means any act by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person for such purposes as obtaining from him or a third person information or a confession, punishing him for an act he or a third person has committed or is suspected of having committed, or intimidating or coercing him or a third person, or for any reason based on discrimination of any kind, when such pain of suffering is inflicted by or at the instigation of or with the consent or acquiescence of a public official or other persons acting in an official capacity. It does not include pain or suffering arising only from, inherent in or incidental to lawful sanctions.
    2. This article is without prejudice to any international instrument or national legislation which does or may contain provisions of wider application.
  10. Para 14 in Concluding observations of the Human Rights Committee : Hong Kong (China). 04/11/99. CCPR/C/79/Add.117.
  11. Article 2(2) of CAT provides, "No exceptional circumstances whatsoever, whether a state of war or a threat of war, internal political in stability or any other public emergency, may be invoked as a justification of torture. Article 4 of the ICCPR provides,
    1. In time of public emergency which threatens the life of the nation and the existence of which is officially proclaimed, the States Parties to the present Covenant may take measures derogating from their obligations under the present Covenant to the extent strictly required by the exigencies of the situation, provided that such measures are not inconsistent with their other obligations under international law and do not involve discrimination solely on the ground of race, colour, sex, language, religion or social origin.
    2. No derogation from articles 6, 7, 8 (paragraphs I and 2), 11, 15, 16 and 18 may be made under this provision.
    3. Any State Party to the present Covenant availing itself of the right of derogation shall immediately inform the other States Parties to the present Covenant, through the intermediary of the Secretary-General of the United Nations, of the provisions from which it has derogated and of the reasons by which it was actuated. A further communication shall be made, through the same intermediary, on the date on which it terminates such derogation."
  12. Article 18 of the Basic Law of the HKSAR provides:
    The laws in force in the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region shall be this Law, the laws previously in force in Hong Kong as provided for in Article 8 of this Law, and the laws enacted by the legislature of the Region.
    National laws shall not be applied in the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region except for those listed in Annex III to this Law. The laws listed therein shall be applied locally by way of promulgation or legislation by the Region.
    The Standing Committee of the National People's Congress may add to or delete from the list of laws in Annex III after consulting its Committee for the Basic law of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region and the government of the Region. Laws listed in Annex II to this Law shall be confined to those relating to defence and foreign affairs as well as other matters outside the limits of the autonomy of the Region as specified by this Law.
    In the event that the Standing Committee of the National People's Congress decides to declare a state of war or, by reason of turmoil within the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region which endangers national unity or security and is beyond the control of the government of the People's Government may issue an order applying the relevant national laws in the Region.
  13. "The Committee also regrets that there is not yet detailed legislation to cover emergency and that the provision in article 18 of the Basic Law on that subject appears not to correspond with the provisions of article 4 of the Covenant." Para. 15 in Concluding observations of the Human Rights Committee : United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland - Hong Kong. 09/11/95. CCPR/C/79/Add.57.
  14. Per Deputy Judge Lugar-Mawson in HKSAR vs Chuen Lai-Sze and 3 Others, MA 470/98 26 September 1998 at pp. 2-3. A full judgment is enclosed in Appendix I.
  15. Court of Appeal, Criminal Appeal No. 119 of 1999. Judgment delivered on 11 April 2000.
  16. These figures do not include those non-reportable cases considered not within the preview of the IPCC.
  17. See Annex 9, Report on the HKSAR by the HKSAR Government to the UN Committee Against Torture 1998.
  18. See Annex 9, Report on the HKSAR by the HKSAR Government to the UN Committee Against Torture 1998.
  19. "Number of Allegations by Nature and by Results of Investigations as per CAPO Reports Examined by the IPCC in 1998," Report of the Independent Police Complaints Council 1998. Appendix X.
  20. To a certain extent, the Department of Justice also bears some responsibility for failing to prevent some of these cases from proceeding to trial.
  21. Hong Kong Human Rights Monitor Position Paper on Police Interrogation Practices and Complaints Procedures, 19 January 1996. Available on http://hkhrm.org.hk/english/reports/police.html
  22. Based on the figures disclosed in "Table 3 - Comparison of challenges in court to videotaped and non-videotaped Police interviews in 1997," the Law Reform Commission of Hong Kong Consultation Paper on the Procedure Governing the Admissibility of Confession Statements in Criminal Proceedings 1999, pp. 3-4, which in turn is based on information provided in a letter from the Police to the Secretary to the Law Reform Commission of 10 July 1998.
  23. There were a number of recent cases in which police officers were sued in civil litigation for assaults. The HKSAR Government has settled some of these cases on the condition that the claimants should kept their deals confidential. Hence such information are not available for the public to better understand the details of the brutality allegedly involved.
  24. Except those involving allegations of corruption, which are referred to the Independent Commission Against Corruption while those in respect of administrative Code on Access to Information unrelated to prevention, detection and investigation of crimes could be dealt with by the Ombudsman.
  25. Before the Reunification, by the Governor.
  26. See Appendix II: "The Monitoring of CAPO Completed Investigations on Police Complaints by the Independent Police Complaints Council," Appendix V to the Report on Review of CAPO's Investigation Procedures, IPCC's Monitoring Mechanisms and Interface with CAPO, July 1996.
  27. The Report of the Independent Police Complaints Council 1998, p.33.
  28. In theory the Chief Executive may appoint a Commission of Inquiry and the Legislative Council may conduct its own inquiry under the Legislative Council (Powers and Privileges) Ordinance but such powers are rarely used and are inappropriate as a regular means of handling complains against police officers.
  29. The initiation of formal disciplinary proceedings does not need the prior endorsement of the IPCC once CAPO concludes that a complaint is substantiated and when legal advice support such actions. Actually, "suspension of disciplinary proceedings pending IPCC endorsement could be an abuse of procedure". See Manual of Procedures, Chapter 17, para. 17-03 and 17-04.
  30. A classification of 'Substantiated Other Than Reported' is given 'Where matters other than the original allegations have been identified (such as breach of internal discipline or failure to observe Police Orders and Regulations) and are found to be substantiated upon evidence. Such matters, however, must be closely associated with the complaint itself. If they are not then they can be dealt with outside the ambit of the investigation. Note that "Other then Reported" allegations are only listed if they are substantiated.' CAPO Annual Report 1998, p. i.
    The current complaint classifications are: substantiated, substantiated other than reported (SOTR), not fully substantiated, unsubstantiated, false, no fault, withdrawn, not pursuable, curtailed, informally resolved, and sub-judice.
  31. "Nature of Complaints Received for the years 1996, 1997 and 1998," Report of the Independent Police Complaints Council 1998. Appendix VI.
  32. "Results of Investigations Endorsed by the IPCC for the years 1996, 1997 and 1998," Report of the Independent Police Complaints Council 1998. Appendix IX.
  33. Ibid.
  34. Ibid.
  35. The HKSAR Government has tried to "improve" the low substantiation rate by discounting the large number of cases which have not been investigated. Such discounted cases include those withdrawn/not pursuable (comprising 57.% of all allegations in 1996, 47.4% in 1997, and 42.1% in 1998) and those which have been handled by informal resolution (comprising 19.2% of all allegations in 1996, 20.9% in 1997, and 26.0% in 1998).
  36. Concluding observations of the Human Rights Committee : United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland - Hong Kong. 09/11/95. CCPR/C/79/Add.57. Para. 11.
  37. Concluding observations of the Human Rights Committee : United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland - Hong Kong. 09/11/95. CCPR/C/79/Add.57. Para. 21.
  38. Concluding observations of the Human Rights Committee : Hong Kong (China). 04/11/99. CCPR/C/79/Add.117. Para. 11.
  39. Concluding observations of the Human Rights Committee : Hong Kong (China). 04/11/99. CCPR/C/79/Add.117. Para. 11.
  40. For example, a complainant Mr. Siu who witnessed an alleged assault of a suspect (who he does not know personally) by the Deputy Commander in Sheung Shui has complained to us that he has been dissuaded by a CAPO officer to give up his complaints. Case on file of Human Rights Monitor (hereafter "the Sheung Shui case").
    In another case on file of Human Rights Monitor, a police officer has misled an independent witness (a TV reporter) of an apparent unjustified assault of a suspect to believe that she could do nothing as the victim has dropped his complaints. Actually she could carry on with her complaint in spite of the victim having withdrawn.
  41. The victim in the Sheung Shui case was charged these offences. He was acquitted on these two charges.
  42. Such as the experience of the girl friend of a college student. Case on file of Human Rights Monitor.
  43. See Choy Yiu Cheong's case. See also Chan Siu Ping's case.
  44. For instance, the complaint in the Sheung Shui case was reported to have lost his job because he has to attend several identification parade and other appointments with the police for his complaints. He complained to Human Rights Monitor that the police still insisted in scheduling appointments during his working hours in spite of his earlier protest against such arrangements.
  45. Complaints Against Police Office's pamphlet: "Informal Resolution".
  46. Minutes of the IPCC Meeting held on 27 October 1999, p.3.
  47. Ibid., p.5.
  48. Ibid., p.6.
  49. Ibid., p.5.
  50. Mr. Denis Chang Khen-lee, SC, JP.

  51. Minutes of the IPCC Meeting held on 27 October 1999, p.5.
  52. Ibid., p.3.
  53. Ibid., p.3.
  54. Ibid., pp.3-7. P.7: "Mrs Grace TAM felt that CAPO had given good answers to all the questions."
  55. Minutes of the IPCC Meeting held on 25 August 1999, p.7.
  56. Weight of Witnesses Given by Relatives/Friends of Complainants. IPCC Paper No. 44/98, p.1.
  57. Ibid., p.3.
  58. See para. 65.
  59. Article 13 of the CAT provides: Each State Party shall ensure that any individual who alleges that he has been subjected to torture in any territory under its jurisdiction has the right to complain to, and to have his case brought promptly and impartially examined by, its competent authorities. Steps shall be taken to ensure that the complainant and witnesses are protected against all ill-treatment or intimidation as a consequence of his complaint or any evidence given.
  60. Minutes of the IPCC Meeting held on 25 August 1999.
  61. The award of "Recorded Warning" is uncertain at this moment as there are disagreement as to whether it amount to a "punishment" between the IPCC and CAPO. While "Recorded Warning" has been awarded without disciplinary hearing in the past, CAPO considers that the relevant police Manuals are outdated and such a warding should only be rewarded after a hearing. See Minutes of the IPCC Meeting held on 25 August 1999.
  62. CAPO Annual Report 1998 (Part A), p.29.
  63. Based on Report of the Independent Police Complaints Council 1998, Appendix XII: Criminal / Disciplinary Proceedings and Internal Action Taken by Police in respect of Cases Endorsed in the Years 1996, 1997 and 1998. These figures do "not include 'Substantiated' complaints directed against the Police Force/Police procedures, identified officers and officers no longer serving in the Police Force.
  64. "Case 8," Report of the Independent Police Complaints Council (1988). Pg. 81.
  65. Report of the Independent Police Complaints Council (1997). Pg. 46-47.
  66. Minutes of the IPCC Meeting held on 25 August 1999.
  67. Disciplinary Action Against Police Officers (IPCC Paper No. 25/98), p.4.
  68. Supplementary Note on Disciplinary Action Against Police Officers (IPCC Paper No. 25/98), p.1.
  69. Para. 89, Report on the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region under the Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment.
  70. Concluding observations of the Human Rights Committee : United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland - Hong Kong. 09/11/95. CCPR/C/79/Add.57. Para. 11.
  71. Ibid., para. 21.
  72. 7 cases in 1998. Report of the Independent Police Complaints Council 1998, p.26.
  73. Report of the Independent Police Complaints Council (1998). Pg. 65.
  74. Section 11 of the Immigration Ordinance provides, "As regards persons not having the right to enter and remain in Hong Kong, this Ordinance does not affect any immigration legislation governing entry into, stay in and departure from Hong Kong, or the application of any such legislation."
  75. See the relevant discussion below.
  76. Para. 119.
  77. Concluding observations of the Human Rights Committee CCPR/C/79/Add.117---paragraph 14.
  78. Reservation entered into on behalf of Hong Kong. See "Application of the Convention to Hong Kong," in Andrew Byrnes and .Johannes Chan, Public Law and Human Rights: A Hong Kong Sourcebook (Hong Kong: Butterworths, 1993), p. 262.
  79. Lui'case.
  80. The UNHCR has a minimal presence in Hong Kong.
  81. The length of the interview is supported by the Correctional Services Department records. While it is submitted that the UNHCR presence in Hong Kong can at times be a useful "safety net" in some cases, it should not be seen to be a remedy for the lack of proper RSD procedures (with statutory appeals and appeals to the courts) and for the HK authorities to "delegate" their responsibilities under the Torture Convention.
  82. It should be noted that the Legal Aid Department maintains some independence.
  83. While some parallels are being made between refugees and torture victims they may not necessarily be equated with one another by legal definition.
  84. See R v Uxbridge Magistrates' Court and another, ex parte Adimi Queen's Bench Division 29 July 1999 and New Zealand High Court decision December 1999 cited in Amnesty International New March 2000 Vol.30 No.2
  85. Soon after this case was being revealed, a similar case happened to a Taiwanese businessman who was going back to Taiwan to see his dying wife. He has been charged for using a forged passport and was being detained. He was released after his passport was verified to be a genuine one issued by the relevant authority but was too late to see her wife.
  86. Para. 118.
  87. "Promptly after arrest and after each transfer from one place of detention or imprisonment to another, a detained or imprisoned person shall be entitled to notify or to require the competent authority to notify members of his family or other appropriate persons of his choice of his arrest, detention or imprisonment or of the transfer and of the place where he is kept in custody".
  88. "Every prisoner on admission shall be provided with written information about the regulations governing the treatment of prisoners of his category, the disciplinary requirements of the institution, the authorized methods of seeking information and making complaints, and all such other matters as are necessary to enable him to understand both his rights and his obligations and to adapt himself to the life of the institution".
  89. Reply by the Commissioner of Correctional Services in Examination of Draft Estimates of Expenditure 2000-01, 16 March 2000.
  90. Rule 29 of the Standard Minimum Rules requires that prison laws or regulations describe what conduct constitutes a disciplinary offence, what types and duration of punishments may be inflicted, and what authorities are competent to inflict such punishments. This rule is fully satisfied in the Hong Kong system. In addition, Rule 35 requires that prisoners be informed of these and other relevant rules; this rule too is at least partially satisfied. Upon arrival to prison, inmates are supposed to be supplied with a booklet that describes the functioning of the institution and other relevant information. While many prisoners told us that they had obtained the booklet, others-particularly remands-had never seen it.
    In addition, since the booklet is only available in complex Chinese characters (as opposed to the simplified characters prevalent in mainland China) and in English, some prisoners cannot read it.
  91. See Prison Rule 61. Numerous offences were deleted in the recent amendments to the Prison Rules, however.
  92. Prison Rule 61(p).
  93. In Standing Order 380, privileges are specifically enumerated to include: canteen purchases; books, periodicals, notebooks and newspapers; theater, concerts and films; sports; recreation; leaves of absence; and participation in public competition.
  94. See Prison Rule 63. In a welcome development, the recent amendments to the Prison Rules lowered the maximum amount of forfeiture of remission from two months to one month. In special cases, the commissioner can order up to three months' loss of remission (previously six months).
  95. The following are representative cases: At Shek Pik Prison, a prisoner found guilty of gambling received twenty-eight days' loss of remission, twenty-eight days' loss of privileges, and twenty-eight days' separate confinement. At Victoria Prison, a prisoner found guilty of verbally abusing CSD staff received fourteen days' loss of remission, fourteen days' loss of privileges, and fourteen days' separate confinement.
  96. Because they cannot go to workshops with the other prisoners, prisoners in separate confinement normally do only the most trivial and rote tasks, such as making envelopes and cotton-balls.
  97. At Shek Pik Prison, for example, out of 563 breach of discipline cases reported during 1996, only twenty-nine were dismissed, and another two were dismissed after appeal to the Commissioner. Letter from Wai Heung-wing, superintendent, to Law Yuk-kai, director, Hong Kong Human Rights Monitor, April 2, 1997.
  98. Ibid.
  99. Anytime a CSD officer uses force against a prisoner he must write up a use of force report describing the circumstances of incident, the amount of force used, and any injuries sustained by the prisoner. A copy of this report is forwarded to the Commissioner's office. The European Committee for the Prevention of Torture (CPT), which monitors conditions in European prisons, strongly recommends such record-keeping as a safeguard against abuse. CPT, "2nd General Report on the CPT's Activities," April 1992, p. 15.
  100. Rule 68B is of relatively recent origin, although administrative segregation was practiced even prior to its promulgation. It was added to the Prison Rules in 1992 in order to reverse the High Court's judgment in the case of Sakchai Suwannapeng. That case involved a prisoner held in administrative segregation who argued in court that no provision in the Prison Rules authorized such segregation. The court agreed with the inmate that the CSD, under the then-current rules, could only segregate inmates for disciplinary reasons or for their own protection. High Court Miscellaneous Proceedings No. 157 of 1990 (Jan. 23, 1990).
  101. At Stanley Prison, for example, we saw a prisoner who had been held in segregation under Rule 68B for his own protection since June 1990, and another prison who had been held in involuntary Rule 68B segregation since June 1996.
  102. An international consensus has developed against prolonged segregation of prisoners. In situations akin to solitary confinement, particularly where all opportunities for social interaction are limited, such segregation may have severe adverse effects on the mental health of the segregated prisoners. See, for example, Basic Principles for the Treatment of Prisoners, Article 7. Because of this concern, the CPT "pays particular attention to prisoners held, for whatever reason (for disciplinary purposes; as a result of their 'dangerousness' or their 'troublesome' behavior; in the interests of a criminal investigation; at their own request), under conditions akin to solitary confinement." CPT, "2nd General Report," p. 15.
  103. This and subsequent such quotes are excerpted from the CSD information cards displayed outside the prisoners' cell.
  104. Nor did Tai Tam Gap Correctional Institution (which holds girls). Tai Lam Centre for Women held one woman under Rule 68B, a foreign prisoner who had allegedly attacked CSD staff at another facility; the superintendent said that he was going to release her in a few days.
  105. Interview, Wai Heung Wing, senior superintendent, Shek Pik Prison, April 1, 1997.
  106. Letter from the CSD to the justices of the peace, January 28, 1997.
  107. Interview, Rick Ying, senior superintendent, Ma Po Ping, April 2, 1997.
  108. Interview, Wong Wai-man, superintendent, Siu Lam Psychiatric Centre, March 27, 1997.
  109. Interview, prisoner, Siu Lam Psychiatric Centre, March 27, 1997.
  110. Interview, medical officer, Siu Lam Psychiatric Centre, March 27, 1997. Finally, one prisoner, not in the BAU program but simply classified as "Other: 1" on the Siu Lam inmate roster, was deemed a management problem and involuntarily transferred to Siu Lam because his brother had sent offensive and threatening mail to government officials. Although BAU prisoners normally stay six months at Siu Lam, this prisoner has been there three years.
  111. Prison Rule 47C.
  112. Correctional Services Department, Hong Kong Correctional Services Annual Review 1995 (Hong Kong: Government Printer, 1996), p. 25.
  113. Letter from Au Siu-hau, CSD, to the Hong Kong Human Rights Monitor, April 7, 1997.
  114. According to official CSD figures, nine out of 171 inmate complaints were found to be substantiated in 1995; eleven out of 154 were found to be substantiated in 1994, and seven out of ninety-five were found to be substantiated in 1993. Correctional Services Department, Hong Kong Correctional Services Annual Review 1995, Appendix 12.
  115. With regard to the possibility of publicly reporting abuses, a recent amendment to Prison Rule 76 is notable. The rule previously barred CSD officers from whistle-blowing; indeed, it barred them from communicating with anyone about the prisons or about prisoners. Recently, a new, much narrower rule went into effect that only prevents CSD officers from divulging information that would interfere with a prisoner's privacy or affect prison security.
  116. Most of their formal powers, which reportedly include the power to issue arrest warrants, may soon be stripped if a pending bill is passed. See Gren Manuel, "JPs No Longer Swear Allegiance to Queen," South China Morning Post, March 8, 1997.
  117. Prison Rule 222(1). JPs also inspect the detention centers holding Vietnamese asylum-seekers.
  118. Interview, prison chaplain, April 3, 1997.
  119. Prison Rule 117.
  120. Judging from comments written in the JP's log books, few JPs view this lack of privacy as a problem (further evidencing their lack of prison experience). One JP touring a juvenile detention center did note, however, that "in such a highly disciplined environment it is unlikely that inmates would request to speak to a JP at attention and under the eyes of staff." Comment written in JP log, Sha Tsui Detention Centre, May 25, 1995.
    The announcements posted in the prisons do mention the possibility of private interviews with JPs. They say, however, that such interviews "can be arranged by the Superintendent." To request the superintendent to arrange a private interview would, of course, draw great attention to the prisoner. Given this fact, it is unsurprising that public interviews are the standard procedure.
  121. Standard Minimum Rules, Article 36(2).
  122. Interview, Rick Wing, senior superintendent, Ma Po Ping Prison, April 2, 1997.
  123. Comment written in JP log, High Island Detention Centre, February 28, 1997. Earlier comments had been even more laudatory. One said: "We were impressed by the orderliness, cleanliness and the general conditions in which the centre is being kept, and also by the centre staffs' sense of commitment, despite that the centre is in a winding down situation." Comment written in JP log, High Island Detention Centre, December 19, 1996.
  124. "The Eighth Annual Report of the Commissioner for Administrative Complaints Hong Kong," June 1996. (The Office of the Commissioner for Administrative Complaints was subsequently renamed the Office of the Ombudsman.)
  125. The ombudsman also wanted to install a telephone hotline in the prisons, a proposal rejected by the CSD. Interview, Chan Ying-lun, deputy ombudsman, March 25, 1997.
  126. Ibid.
  127. He stated that the ombudsman would be releasing his annual report in mid-summer, which would contain statistical information regarding complaints received and their outcomes. Ibid.
  128. The deputy ombudsman complimented the CSD on its handling of this procedure, stating that the department responded rapidly to the ombudsman's queries and conducted very thorough investigations. Ibid.

Download the document

Download the Table of Contents

2000 (c) Hong Kong Human Rights Monitor


Back to the homepage in: English Traditional Chinese Simplified Chinese