******************************************************
Following is a reply by the Secretary for Security, Mr Ambrose S K Lee, to a question by the Hon Wong Yuk-man in the Legislative Council today (January 27):
Question:
There have been comments that the arrangements during and after the march for universal suffrage held on new year's day of 2010 were made by the Police with the intention to suppress the participants of the march, which seriously undermined the freedom of expression. Those arrangements included deploying a large and disproportionate number of police officers at the destination of the march, i.e. outside the Liaison Office of the Central People's Government in the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region ("the Liaison Office"), video-filming the faces of the participants at a close distance, and sending police officers to the home of a participant of the march in a high profile manner afterwards to harass her family members. In this connection, will the Government inform this Council:
(a) of the number of police officers deployed outside the Liaison Office on the day of the march and the justifications for the deployment of police of such a scale;
(b) given that it was reported that although the Police had already obtained the telephone number of the aforesaid participant, they still sent police officers to her home early this month to ask her family members about her contact details as a way to harass them, and then arrested the participant in a high profile manner afterwards, of the justifications for the Police making such arrangements; and
(c) given that there have been comments that the Police might have intruded into personal privacy by video-filming the faces of participants of the march at a close distance, whether it has assessed if the participants have the right to refuse being video-filmed by the Police; and whether the Police are required to obtain the prior consent of those to be video-filmed?
Reply:
President,
(a) The HKSAR Government respects the rights of the public to peaceful assemblies and processions and to express their views. As Hong Kong is a crowded place, large-scale public assemblies and processions will affect other people or road users, and may have impacts on public safety and order. In this connection, while facilitating the expression of views by participants of processions, it is also the Police's responsibility to maintain public order, and at the same time strike a balance by ensuring the rights of other people to use the public place or road as well as their safety. Participants of processions, in expressing their views to the public, should also observe the Hong Kong law and public order and proceed in a peaceful and safe manner.
In handling public events, the Police will maintain close contact with the organisers having regard to the information and the expected number of participants provided by the latter. The Police will, by taking into account possible public responses, strategies and experience in handling similar events in the past, details of the events and possible constrains on their operations, make comprehensive risk assessment and examination to decide on the necessary manpower deployment and implement appropriate crowd management measures, with a view to ensuring that the event is conducted in a safe and orderly manner.
With regard to the procession on the first of January, the expected number of participants as provided by the organiser was 10,000. Since the procession itinerary included a number of busy districts and trunk roads, it was necessary for the Police to deploy sufficient officers along the route of procession and at the assembly place to maintain order of the whole procession and to ensure proper crowd and traffic management. The Police have not maintained breakdown figures on police officers on duty at individual locations. Besides, the event on that day demanded flexible deployment to cope with the movement of the crowds in the procession and their activities. According to the Police, about 1,000 officers were deployed in total for the operation on that day.
(b) If the Police need to take arrest and charge action based on the facts and evidence collected, it is a usual practice of the department to go to the reported residential or office address(es) of the case subject to make an arrest action. With regard to the case mentioned in part (b) of the question, I understand that the Police have followed the usual practice in handling the matter.
(c) If the Police consider it necessary to take video records of major public events, the main purpose is to maintain a live record of the event itself rather than to target individual participants. In general, video-filming is to facilitate future internal review and strategy evaluation with a view to improving the management and response capabilities of the Police in dealing with large-scale events. For this reason, video-filming by the Police of any procession or overall movements of crowds does not involve any purpose or act pertaining to personal data collection. Except for the constraints at an event venue or its environment, police officers normally do not video-film individual participants at a close distance.
Only when there are signs of a breach or a possible breach of public peace or public order, will the course of the incident or the behaviour of individuals causing the breach become the focus of the video-filming by police officers. In such cases, it is reasonable and lawful for the Police to take evidence by video-filming those who are suspected to have violated the law.
Only police officers with appropriate training will be tasked to video-film public events. Any such filming will require the special authorisation from officers of the rank of Chief Superintendent or above. Besides, officers responsible for the filming must act in accordance with the specific instructions of a supervisor of the rank of Superintendent or above. Police officers who carry out video-filming will be identifiable by wearing uniforms of police officers.
Ends/Wednesday, January 27, 2010
Issued at HKT 15:39
NNNN
