district councillor setting up street counter intercepted by police, being ridiculed and called a dog by police officer.
Democratic district councillor from the Wong Tai Sin district, Mandy Tam, reflected to stand news that in the evening of 27th of March, 2020, she was setting up a street booth outside of Lung Poon Court of Diamond Hill, when 5 uniformed police officers arrived on the site, claiming somebody alerted the police for the noise problem. The officers then ordered Tam to provide her identity card to record down the information. She recalled that 3 officers accompanied her back to her office to acquire her identity card. When Tam accused the police’s actions as a mere waste of time, an officer refuted aggressively, “you can sit here if you want. We can wait.” Tam immediately sat down after hearing the aggression. After a period of disputes, the same officer ordered Tam to stand up and go to her office to retrieve her identity card. When Tam followed the order, the officer sneered, “dogs really are obedient, when you call they immediately stood up.”
Tam believed having 5 police officers to handle a noise problem from a district councillor’s street booth is both a waste of resources and political suppression. She also criticized the officer of insulting and humiliating a district councillor, “the (police’s) actions were unprofessional and had easily lost their temper.” Tam had already informed the Police Public Relations Branch of the incident, and would complain to the officer’s commander the next day. Tam added that she would not eliminate the possibility of complaining to the Complaints and Internal Investigations Branch.
The Laws of Hong KongCap. 232A “Police (Discipline) Regulations” Part 1 Article 3:
2) The offences against discipline are—
(c) conduct to the prejudice of good order and discipline;
(k) unlawful or unnecessary exercise of authority resulting in loss or injury to any other person or to the Government;
(m) conduct calculated to bring the public service into disrepute.
In the case of Sin Kam Wah v HKSAR (2005) 8 HKCFAR 192 , the Court of Final Appeal restated the 5 requirements forMisconduct in Public Office: (1) A public official;
(2) In the course of or in relation to his public office;
(3) Willfully misconducts himself by act or omission; for
example, by willfully neglecting or failing to perform
(4) Without reasonable excuse or justification; and
(5) Where such misconduct is serious, not trivial, having
regard to the responsibilities of the office and the
office-holder, the importance of the public objects
which they serve and the nature and extent of the
departure from those responsibilities.