Instead of clearing the air, the report published last Saturday into the leaking of personal data on police complainants has just stirred up more controversy. A key party involved has criticised the Independent Police Complaints Council (IPCC) for being unfair in the report, saying it was shirking its responsibility.
The scandal was revealed in a South China Morning Post report on March 10, which said confidential personal data belonging to the IPCC had been released on the internet. This included the names, addresses, identity-card numbers and even criminal records of 20,000 people who had made complaints against the police. It also contained the names of police officers named in the complaints.
The IPCC is a non-statutory body appointed by the administration to oversee the work of the Complaints Against the Police Office. But its system - using police officers to investigate complaints against the force - has been criticised by the public and the United Nations Human Rights Committee, for lacking transparency and accountability. In its investigation of the current controversy, the IPCC apparently did not conduct a comprehensive, fact-finding exercise, including cross-examining witnesses.
Instead, it just interviewed the parties most directly concerned, including a secretary in the IPCC and the project manager in charge of the database that held the leaked names, Kirren Heung Yam-ling. It also received submissions from computer-system contractor EDPS, Mr Heung's employer.
In its report, the IPCC said the parties concerned disagreed over the circumstances surrounding the information leak. It noted that the dispute would likely lead to litigation or disciplinary proceedings, so it would be inappropriate for the IPCC to prejudge the matter. Nevertheless, it labelled EDPS and Mr Heung the 'immediate and proximate cause' of the leak.
To redress the situation, the IPCC will send a letter of apology to each person affected - including police officers - based on data retrieved to date. The IPCC will consider any claim from individuals who say they suffered damages and will make recommendations to the government. It has urged the administration to put in place credit-monitoring measures to prevent the data from being misused.
Instead of laying the controversy to rest, the report has done the opposite. The boss of EDPS, Ken Ng Kin, challenged it, claiming the findings have damaged his company's reputation.