就爭論點①PGO所列的規例對本案的關聯之陳述,案發當時是有群警員邁向地鐵站口,向人群衝擊,毆打在場年輕人頭部(“Police officers charging to the MTR, whacking the younger persons over the head,”);並聲稱該行動是和平、有紀律的(“claiming to be peaceful and disciplined,”),同時又使用高度武力鎮壓(“while exercising high degree of restraint”)。在場只有和平的公眾市民,也沒有舉行公眾示威(“They were peaceful members of the public, no public protests happening,”);他們只是一個普通的週六晚上,在銅鑼灣逛街的市民(“just Causeway Bay shoppers, at a Saturday night”)。
究竟涉案警員以高度武力鎮壓與PGO有否關聯?(“Is it relevant that the PGO serves the excercise high degree of restraint?”) 當然有關聯,控方(他日)能否向陪審團合理地解釋警員何以預備使用該警棍的姿勢衝落樓梯底的人群(“could you please explain to the jury: the police officer ran downstairs to a group, carrying it(the baton) in a manner you are ready to use”)?辯方律師表示該警員或者不會用其警棍,但亦不能排除有使用的可能(“it may not but it might”),在這他必須是在執行職務時才使用(“it has to be during the execution of his duty”)。
林官詢問此陳詞有否證據支持(“but is this factual findings”)?辯方律師表示警方內部應該有訓練指引,上級亦應該指揮部下行為(“the internal training materials, and hierachy tells how the officers should be”);倘若沒有人員作出指引,PGO就是針對警員行為的規範(“Without any guidance, this is the guide to police officers!”)。
林官再問PGO呈堂是否對本案有關聯(“is it relevant”)?辯方反問「是否完全無關(“is it tangently^ relevant”)?我(當時人)能受到公平審訊嗎(“can I have a fair trial”)?」以表示完整全份的PGO為本案公平審訊的關鍵。 (^ 辯方應該想講“tangentially”)
林官問假如警員沒有遵從PGO,他會否即時喪失警務人員身份(“if, if an officer does not follow the PGO, is he not, immediately, an officer)?辯方不認同,但警員執行職務時應該表明身份。提及到本案涉事警員不但沒有表明警員身份亦沒有保持靜默(“this officer did not identify himself, nor did he remain silent”),當時被以英語、粵語、國語詢問「你是否警察」,他都否認(“He was asked in English, Cantonese and Mandarin: Are you a police? He denied!”)。辯方質疑該警員執法時作出的舉動有何原則,他沒有喝令人群退後散開,反而他將行動升級,直接使用警棍(“He could’ve said: Back off! Stand aside! No, he went straight escalated, straight to using the baton”);而警棍是一件武器。
辯方律師指行使公眾利益豁免(PII)證書一般有四大類理據(語速太快未能逐字記錄) ① 披露涉機密或敏感資料(“disclosure of specific content”) ② 削弱公正性(“undermining court ??”) ③ 危害公眾安全(“endangering public safety”) ④ 使到警方部署溝通受損(“compromising communication between officers and commder”) 辯方不見得本案要求索取警察通例PGO/戰術訓練手冊(TTM)/防暴操手冊(ISM)適用任何一類PII,所以認為應當透露,除非後果是對公眾利益造成巨大損害。
辯方指勉強可以歸類至第④類,更指警棍只是一枝棍,一件低科技、原始的器具,毫無戰術可言(“A baton is simply a stick, a lo-tech, primitive piece of equipment. There’s no tactic at all.”)。警棍不能用作溝通工具,且不能協助調查(“A baton is not a radio, you can’t communicate with your commander with it. So it won’t be compromising the investigation”)。