Hong Kong's High Court to rule on whether police can seize mobile phones
The High Court will decide whether police officers have the authority to seize the mobile phones of people they arrest and access the content, after an application for a judicial review was granted.
The High Court will decide whether police officers have the authority to seize the mobile phones of people they arrest and access the content, after an application for a judicial review was granted.
The Civil Human Rights Front, an alliance of pro-democracy groups that organises the annual July 1 march, sought court clarification after police arrested five members and seized their phones.
The members were arrested on suspicion of breaching the conditions of a notice of no objection to last year's march - issued by the police - and obstructing officers.
READ MORE: Police scammer: Hongkongers suspicious of text message warning them to be wary of phone scams
Police accused the five of leading the march "too slowly".
Hectar Pun Hei SC will represent the plaintiff, Sham Wing-kan, when the two-day hearing opens tomorrow.
"We are seeking this judicial review because it affects not just the five of us," said Daisy Chan Sin-ying, convenor of the group.
Chan said they were told their phones were seized because it would help the police investigation. But when police told them in March that the investigation was over with no charges pressed, it turned out their phones were never accessed.
The legislation in question - section 50 (6) of the Police Ordinance - says officers can "search for and take possession of any newspaper, book or other document ... and any other article or chattel" found on anyone apprehended if a police officer "may reasonably suspect [it] to be of value to the investigation".
READ MORE: Chinese police post photo of man taking selfie from the boot of moving car
Describing the law as "archaic", Johnson Yeung Ching-yin, one of the five, said a smartphone was of a different nature than the items named in the law.
"A smartphone may contain access to social-media platforms, personal information of others or even pictures of a very private nature," Yeung said.
"It would be a disproportionate infringement of privacy if the police can demand access only on the grounds of 'reasonable suspicion'."
