韋智達律師行代表荃灣警署內被強姦及性侵犯投訴人X小姐發表聲明：
「當我在2019年10月向警方就一宗就被警員強姦及性侵犯作出刑事投訴時，我是在期望警方會公正、絕對保密並尊重我的私隱及尊嚴之下向警方報案。我循適當的渠道報案，並就事件向警方提供了詳細的說明，亦回答了鉅細無遺而相當具入侵性的問題。我容許了警方在我的終止懷孕手術後從胚胎取出DNA樣本，以助辨別至少一名施暴者。
我從未想將此投訴公諸於世。我亦未有將這投訴政治化。我於2019年11月11日公開作出聲明，只是為了回應那些使我極困擾的披露所謂案件詳情的網上流言，以及選擇性地透露所謂調查細節並作出對證據作出負面評論的『警方消息』。我相信任何客觀旁觀者都是認為這些舉動是有意公開抹黑我的行為。
在警察公共關係科透露案情細節及作出評論之前，本應就我的投訴進行調查的警方反而於2019年11月4日申請搜查令以檢取我的私人醫療紀錄及私家診所的閉路電視片段。這是在我不知情和沒有我的同意下發生，濫權並嚴重侵犯了我的私隱。所幸的是我的醫生及時通知，而法庭亦從我的代表律師得悉有關細節後撤銷該搜查令。
於2020年1月16 日，當我從媒體報導得知警務處處長公開指稱我的投訴是「假消息」及「正循誤導警員或給予假口供方向調查」時，我再一次感到極度難過。我相信任何客觀旁觀者都會認為警務處處長這些行徑是公開貶損我並影響成功檢控機會的舉動。
透過我的代表律師，我不斷向警方要求他們提供查詢調查的進展和細節。這是我在罪行受害者約章下受保障的權利，亦是因為警方的舉措使我相信我的投訴被貶低。我從未被告知調查的細節，這意味着我並不能反駁任何指我的投訴與證據不符的說法。
在2020年4月6日，律政司通知我的律師，指警方不會繼續進行調查並聲稱我的投訴與他們所得的證據不符。雖然我的律師作出有關要求，但他們未有提供該證據的細節，所以我未能說服律政司我的說法是真的，亦未有機會反駁指稱我的說法與其他證據不符的言論。
昨日（2020年5月12日），我由媒體報導得知警務處處長公開聲稱我將因「落假口供」而面臨拘捕。他再次選擇了公開作出這些聲稱，任何客觀旁觀者都會認為這些行徑是有意貶損我的行為。
七個月前，我鼓起勇氣，就在荃灣警署內被身份不明的警務人員強姦及性侵犯一事作出舉報。我希望並期盼我的投訴會在尊重我私隱和尊嚴的情況下被公正、絕對保密地調查。然而，這沒有發生。」
Allegation by Ms X of Rape and Sexual Assault inside Tsuen Wan Police Station.
We continue to represent Ms X and are authorised by her to issue the following statement on her behalf.
———————————————————-
“When in October 2019 I lodged my criminal complaint of rape and sexual assault by police officers, I did so in the expectation that it would be investigated with impartiality by the police, in strict confidence, and with respect for my privacy and dignity. I filed my report through the proper channels and gave a detailed account of the events to police, answering extensive and highly invasive questions. I permitted the taking of a DNA sample from my aborted foetus in order to assist in identifying at least one of my assailants.
I have sought no publicity about my complaint. Nor have I politicised my complaint. I issued a statement on 11 November 2019 only in response to deeply distressing alleged details of my case being leaked onto the internet and ‘police sources’ selectively releasing supposed details of the investigation along with adverse comment on the evidence. I believe this was done in a way which any objective observer would be driven to conclude was directed at publicly discrediting me.
These leaks and comment by the Police Public Relations Bureau followed a gross invasion of my privacy and abuse of police power when, on 4 November, the police who were supposed to be investigating my complaint, obtained a search warrant to seize my private medical records and CCTV footage from the clinic of my private doctor. They did so without my knowledge or consent. Thankfully I was told of that warrant by my doctor and the court set aside the search warrant after it was properly apprised of the facts by my lawyers.
I was further distressed to learn on 16 January 2020, that the Commissioner of Police had alluded, in public, to my criminal complaint as being ‘fake information’ and that ‘investigators are now investigating in the direction of misleading police officer’. I believe that was in a manner in which any objective observer would be driven to conclude was directed at publicly discrediting me and diminishing any prospects of a successful prosecution.
Through my lawyers I have repeatedly requested updates and details of the police investigation. This was pursuant to guarantees in the Hong Kong Police Victim’s Charter and because the conduct of the police led me to believe my complaint was being undermined. No details of the investigation have ever been provided. This has meant that I have not been in a position to refute any claims that my complaint was contrary to other evidence.
On 6 April 2020, the Department of Justice informed my lawyers that my police report would not be taken any further, claiming that my complaint is contrary to evidence they obtained. No particulars of that evidence have been provided despite requests by my lawyers so I have not been in a position to be able to convince the Department of Justice that my account is true; nor have I had any opportunity to refute the claim that my account is contrary to other evidence.
Yesterday (12 May 2020) I learnt from media reports that the Commissioner has publicly said that I am facing arrest for ‘making a false statement’. He again chose to do so publicly, in a manner which any objective observer would be driven to conclude was directed at discrediting me.
Seven months ago, I plucked up all my courage to file a complaint of rape and sexual assault by unknown police officers inside Tsuen Wan Police Station. I hoped and prayed that the complaint would be investigated impartially, in strict confidence and with respect for my privacy and dignity. None of that has happened.”
————————————————————-
The anonymity order granted by the court on 5 November 2019 remains in force. This prohibits any person from identifying Ms X. Anyone breaching this order risks being found in contempt of court.
有關X小姐就荃灣警署內被強姦及性侵犯的投訴
我們繼續代表X小姐，並得到她的授權代表她作出以下聲明：
————————————————————-
「當我在2019年10月向警方就一宗就被警員強姦及性侵犯作出刑事投訴時，我是在期望警方會公正、絕對保密並尊重我的私隱及尊嚴之下向警方報案。我循適當的渠道報案，並就事件向警方提供了詳細的說明，亦回答了鉅細無遺而相當具入侵性的問題。我容許了警方在我的終止懷孕手術後從胚胎取出DNA樣本，以助辨別至少一名施暴者。
我從未想將此投訴公諸於世。我亦未有將這投訴政治化。我於2019年11月11日公開作出聲明，只是為了回應那些使我極困擾的披露所謂案件詳情的網上流言，以及選擇性地透露所謂調查細節並作出對證據作出負面評論的『警方消息』。我相信任何客觀旁觀者都是認為這些舉動是有意公開抹黑我的行為。
在警察公共關係科透露案情細節及作出評論之前，本應就我的投訴進行調查的警方反而於2019年11月4日申請搜查令以檢取我的私人醫療紀錄及私家診所的閉路電視片段。這是在我不知情和沒有我的同意下發生，濫權並嚴重侵犯了我的私隱。所幸的是我的醫生及時通知，而法庭亦從我的代表律師得悉有關細節後撤銷該搜查令。
於2020年1月16 日，當我從媒體報導得知警務處處長公開指稱我的投訴是「假消息」及「正循誤導警員或給予假口供方向調查」時，我再一次感到極度難過。我相信任何客觀旁觀者都會認為警務處處長這些行徑是公開貶損我並影響成功檢控機會的舉動。
透過我的代表律師，我不斷向警方要求他們提供查詢調查的進展和細節。這是我在罪行受害者約章下受保障的權利，亦是因為警方的舉措使我相信我的投訴被貶低。我從未被告知調查的細節，這意味着我並不能反駁任何指我的投訴與證據不符的說法。
在2020年4月6日，律政司通知我的律師，指警方不會繼續進行調查並聲稱我的投訴與他們所得的證據不符。雖然我的律師作出有關要求，但他們未有提供該證據的細節，所以我未能說服律政司我的說法是真的，亦未有機會反駁指稱我的說法與其他證據不符的言論。
昨日（2020年5月12日），我由媒體報導得知警務處處長公開聲稱我將因「落假口供」而面臨拘捕。他再次選擇了公開作出這些聲稱，任何客觀旁觀者都會認為這些行徑是有意貶損我的行為。
七個月前，我鼓起勇氣，就在荃灣警署內被身份不明的警務人員強姦及性侵犯一事作出舉報。我希望並期盼我的投訴會在尊重我私隱和尊嚴的情況下被公正、絕對保密地調查。然而，這沒有發生。」
—————————————————————
法庭於2019年11月5日頒下的匿名令仍然有效，禁止任何人辦別X小姐的身份。任何違反這一命令的人都可能被視為藐視法庭。
#MeToo
criminal contempt 在 Bannon appears in court to face criminal contempt charges 的推薦與評價
... <看更多>