PUBLISHED : Thursday, 25 May, 1995, 12:00am
UPDATED : Thursday, 25 May, 1995, 12:00am

MR Eric Lockeyear, for the Commissioner of Police, successfully evaded my questions in his letter headlined, 'Why complaint was passed back to station' (South China Morning Post, April 29).

The questions I put in my letter (Post, April 12) were simple.

Firstly, what is the objective of having the Complaints Against Police Office (CAPO)? I presume the answer from police is to have a purportedly impartial and independent investigation of complaints against police. But I want to know how the force really perceives CAPO's role.

My second question is, can the objective of impartiality be achieved by CAPO sending the investigation back to the very same police station from which the complaint originated? One has to doubt this impartiality in such a situation.

Mr Lockeyear also mentioned that all investigations are ultimately submitted to the Independent Police Complaints Council (IPCC) for monitoring and endorsement. The IPCC is an independent monitoring group comprising non-police members appointed personally by the Governor.

In the South China Morning Post, of April 27, Secretary for Security, Mr Peter Lai Hing-ling, in response to a question in Legco, was reported as saying that he believed that 'many police officers refused to be interviewed'.

Is this a reflection of the official police attitude towards the IPCC? Is this fair to those devoted members of the IPCC who have given their own time for the benefit of Hong Kong? Is it respectful to the Governor who appointed these members? I hope Mr Lockeyear will not evade these questions.