Statement on the IOPC’s Final Report 关于英国监警会报告的声明

Statement on the IOPC’s Final Report

30 June 2019

On 26 June the Independent Office for Police Conduct (IOPC) published its findings and decision in response to the complaints that my wife and I filed following my unlawful arrests during the Chinese state visit in October 2015. After three and a half years of waiting for this report, we have been left completely disappointed by the IOPC’s decision to let off the police officers responsible for my arrests, detention, home raid and seizure of computer equipment.

We have learnt that after a long investigation the IOPC found a case to answer for gross misconduct against two senior police officers. However, after criticism from the Metropolitan Police Service, the IOPC reversed their decision and dropped its findings. We find this both morally wrong and procedurally incorrect. 

The IOPC’s report shows what we already suspected; that the police were placed under political pressure from both the Chinese and UK governments to make sure that the Chinese president was not “embarrassed” by protesters during his stay. We now know that the Chinese delegation made “a series of requests” regarding the “management of protesters” to the UK government and had tried to apply pressure directly to the police. The investigation says that the UK government also made “unusual requests” to the police about managing protests during the Chinese state visit, which according to one senior police officer was “unprecedented”. Frustratingly, the actual details describing conversations and requests, which amounted to pressure on the police, have all been redacted from the published report on the grounds of “public interest”.

It has emerged that police officers were briefed to make sure that the state visit ran smoothly without “embarrassments” to the Chinese and that “nothing was to go wrong”. The report includes comments by one of the senior officers involved in policing the event that “protest near the Chinese president is almost never tolerated, especially in a foreign country”.

The IOPC originally found that the evidence suggested that political pressure did influence the decision to arrest me, which we strongly believe to be the case. It is incredibly disappointing to learn that the IOPC have now dropped this, after written representations from the Metropolitan Police Service.

The IOPC holds itself out to be independent of the police and government. Our experience shows this to be false. They have completely failed under opposition from the Metropolitan Police Service to hold one of their senior officers to account. In doing so, they have rendered their entire investigation a wasted endeavour. What we asked for was transparency, accountability and redress. What we have been left with is a lack of trust in the police misconduct process and the IOPC’s ability to conduct an independent investigation.

This report came out at the time when remembering the Tiananmen Massacre is still treated as a crime in China, and when two million Hong Kong people took to the street to fight for judiciary independence. We expected so much more in a democratic country, but we are confronted with the chilling reality that our host country in exile is a place where suppression of peaceful protests and the use of ‘public interest’ test to withhold information from public scrutiny have greatly undermined the fundamental values of its own civil liberty and democracy.

We are not giving up. We would like to thank our lawyers at the Bindmans who have fought with us all the way and who will continue to assist us in further legal actions.

More:

Bindmans: https://www.bindmans.com/news/shao-jiang-releases-statement-on-the-iopc…

Observer: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2019/jun/30/political-pressure-before-arrest-of-chinese-dissident-london

IOPC Final report:https://policeconduct.gov.uk/sites/default/files/Dr%20Shao%20Jiang%20-%20Final%20report.pdf

IOPC Summary of determinations and final outcomes:https://policeconduct.gov.uk/sites/default/files/Dr%20Shao%20Jiang%20-%20Summary%20of%20determinations%20and%20outcomes.pdf

Summary of IPCC Complaint re My Arrest during Xi Jinping's UK Visit:https://www.amnesty.org.uk/blogs/countdown-china/summary-ipcc-complaint-re-my-arrest-during-xi-jinpings-uk-visit#.VmqDumrq5TM.twitter

Amnesty International UK: https://www.amnesty.org.uk/blogs/press-release-me-let-me-go/china-shao-jiang-activist-tiananmen-square-arrest-london-president-china

Independent: https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/uk-accused-of-doing-chinas-bidding-after-police-raid-home-of-tiananmen-square-survivor-over-peaceful-a6704911.html

TCHRD

http://tchrd.org/tchrd-condemns-detention-and-intimidation-of-peaceful-…

House of Commons Hansard: https://hansard.parliament.uk/Commons/2015-10-26/debates/15102612000003/ArrestsOfChineseProtesters

Guardian: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/may/11/queen-chinese-officials-very-rude-xi-jinping-state-visit

BBC: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-china-36265224

In Chinese

关于英国监警会报告的声明

2019年6月30日

6月26日,英国监警会发布了针对我和妻子投诉英国警方在2015年习近平访英期间对我进行非法逮捕所的调查和决定。经过三年半的等待,我们对英国监警会放弃追究伦敦大都市高级警官在对我进行逮捕、拘留、搜家和没收电脑过程中犯有严重不当行为的决定极为失望。

我们获悉监警会在长时间的调查后,认定有两名高级警官犯有严重的不当行为。然而在收到警方的批评后,监警会撤回了自己的决定,放弃了追责。监警会的行为在道德上是错误的,在程序上也不正确。

监警会的报告证实了我们当初的怀疑:英国警方确实受到来自中国和英国政府的双重政治压力,以确保习近平在访英期间不会因面对抗议者而“尴尬”。我们现在知道,中方代表就“管理抗议者”向英国政府提出了“一系列的要求”,并试图直接向英国警方施加压力。监警会的调查显示,在访问期间,英国政府也对警方如何管理抗议提出了“不同寻常的要求”。一名高级警官说,这样的要求是“前所未有”的。令人遗憾的是,凡涉及有关警方受到政治压力的具体对话内容在最后出版的报告中皆以“公共利益”为由涂黑删除。

监警会的调查表明,各级警察在习近平来访前的任务部署中得到指示,要确保访问顺利进行,不要让中方感到“尴尬”,要做到“万无一失”。一名参与管理示威的高级警官说:“中国领导人绝对不能容忍在他们附近出现任何政治抗议,尤其是在外事访问期间。”

监警会的原始证据表明,政治压力确实影响了对我逮捕的决定,我们也坚信这一点。令人极端失望的是,监警会在收到伦敦大都会警察局律师的书面意见后,放弃了这些证据和结论。

英国监警会自称独立于警方和政府。然而,我们的经验表明这种宣称是虚假的。在警方的压力下,监警会完全丧失了自己的独立职责,未能对高级警官进行问责。这种做法使整个调查过程成为一种徒劳的行为。我们当初的要求是透明、问责和赔偿,而在经历了整个投诉程序后,我们现在已经对调查警察不端行为的程序丧失了信任,也不再相信英国监警会具有独立调查警察的能力。

监警会报告发布在2019年的六月,正值天安门屠杀三十周年祭月,在中国大陆境内公开记忆六四屠杀仍然被视为犯罪。这也是200万香港人民走上街头争取司法独立的月份。我们对英国这样一个民主国家曾经有更多的期望,但现在却不得不面对冷酷的现实: 我们流亡栖身的英国,对和平示威的镇压以及以“公共利益”为名拒绝公众监督的种种行为已经极大地破坏了自身民主制度和公民自由的基本价值。

我们不会放弃。我们想在此感谢Bindmans的律师团队,他们自始至终地支持我们,并将继续协助我们进行法律诉讼。

About Amnesty UK Blogs
Our blogs are written by Amnesty International staff, volunteers and other interested individuals, to encourage debate around human rights issues. They do not necessarily represent the views of Amnesty International.
View latest posts
0 comments