Advertisement
Advertisement
Hong Kong protests
Get more with myNEWS
A personalised news feed of stories that matter to you
Learn more
Riot police fire tear gas at protesters as they retreat to Connaught Road in Central during a march against the extradition bill in July last year. Photo: SCMP/Felix Wong

Hong Kong police have 35 days to respond to legal action for the disclosure of ingredients in tear gas used in protests

  • High Court says police must respond to opposition politician’s application for details on the tear gas they used in his constituency
  • Ted Hui is planning to use the information to challenge the legality, reasonableness and proportionality of police use of the weapon

Hong Kong police have 35 days to respond to an opposition politician’s legal action for the disclosure of ingredients in the tear gas they used during the past year of anti-government protests.

Mr Justice Godfrey Lam Wan-ho of the High Court issued a deadline for the force to respond to Ted Hui Chi-fung’s application for details on the tear gas police used in his constituency in Central and Western district, where some of the most notable protests have taken place.

The information Hui sought included the tear gas ingredients, the chemical compounds emitted and details of the models used.

The lawmaker and district councillor is planning to use the information to mount a judicial review challenging the legality, reasonableness and proportionality of police deployment of tear gas, and help those who intend to seek claims over injuries caused by the weapon.

Hong Kong health officials must come clean on harmful effects of tear gas

His hearing on Tuesday coincided with the first anniversary of a million-strong march against the now-withdrawn extradition bill. The campaign later snowballed into a year-long anti-government movement that extended to other issues such as police use of force and universal suffrage.

Latest figures showed police had fired 16,223 rounds of tear gas since the first march on June 9.

But the chemical contents of the crowd-control agent remain a mystery since the force and health officials have repeatedly refused to provide details, citing security and operational reasons, while some people have complained about its effect on personal and public health.

Hui said it was particularly meaningful to have his case heard on this day, as scheduled by the judiciary.

“This case is one of Hongkongers’ biggest retaliations for police violence,” he told reporters after the hearing.

His lawyer, Victor Yeung, called the latest development “a small victory” since he believed police had been delaying the case as though they have something to hide.

The Department of Justice, representing the police commissioner, had asked for a separate hearing on the legal question of whether Hui’s application for pre-action discovery was applicable to an intended judicial review. Government lawyers also questioned whether the information sought was necessary and relevant to Hui’s proposed challenge.

But the judge found there was no need for preliminary arguments and ordered the department to file its affirmation in 35 days before the substantive hearing, which has yet to be scheduled.

Outside court, Yeung said Hui’s application was rare but necessary as it would be difficult to apply for judicial review and to question the lawfulness of deployment without knowing what was in the tear gas.

“They have to disclose the ingredients,” Yeung said.

Post