Tai Po Police Accused of Obstructing Authorized Demolition, Claiming DOJ Shield
On.cc · 2 SOURCESabout 2 hours ago2 MIN
Summary
Two companies have taken legal action against the Hong Kong Police Force after allegedly being obstructed by Tai Po district officers while carrying out demolition work required by government authorities. The incident raises serious questions about police conduct and their claimed immunity from legal consequences.
Key Points
- Licksun Company Limited filed a writ at the District Court on November 9, 2026, suing the Tai Po District Crime Investigation Team No. 8 and five individual officers over incidents in September and October .
- The company had leased lots No. 118 and 119 at Section 23 of Ting Kok, Tai Po from landlord Lolo Limited until September 2029, and was complying with a Planning Department order to remove concrete bricks and hard surfaces .
- On September 23, officers badge numbered 14081 and 63437 arrived and demanded workers leave, threatening arrest if they continued, despite police having previously confirmed the work involved no criminal elements .
- The officers allegedly stated they would be protected by the Secretary for Justice and would bear no personal legal responsibility even if their arrests infringed upon the company's land use rights .
- On October 11, officers badge numbered 59037 and 63437 went to the plaintiff's director's residence without a search warrant, used a hard object to force open a wooden door causing damage, and stated they intended to arrest the director .
Why It Matters
The officers' alleged claim of immunity from legal consequences raises concerns about accountability within the police force and could set a troubling precedent if upheld . The case highlights a potential conflict between law enforcement discretion and citizens' rights to comply with legitimate government directives, particularly when officers override earlier assessments by their own superiors .
The officers' alleged claim of immunity from legal consequences raises concerns about accountability within the police force and could set a troubling precedent if upheld . The case highlights a potential conflict between law enforcement discretion and citizens' rights to comply with legitimate government directives, particularly when officers override earlier assessments by their own superiors .