******************************************************
Following is a question by the Hon Emily Lau and a written reply by the Secretary for Security, Mr Lai Tung-kwok, in the Legislative Council today (February 19):
Question:
I have learnt that a public assembly was held at Chater Road, Central on January 1 this year, during which some police officers attempted to seize some protest items and thus came into conflict with the protesters. Some journalists saw two uniformed police constables making video records of the scene of the conflict. In this connection, will the Executive Authorities inform this Council:
(1) of the details of the guidelines issued by the authorities on the use of video-recording devices by police officers when discharging law enforcement duties, including the circumstances under which video records of public assemblies and processions may be made;
(2) whether they have investigated if, before making video records, the two aforesaid police constables or other police officers had notified the persons present by raising information signs or other means that they would be making video records; if such notification had been made, of the details; if no notification had been made, the reasons for that;
(3) as some protesters have relayed that when making video records during public assemblies and processions, the Police often do not notify the persons present that video recording is in progress, whether the Police will in future assign police officers to notify the persons present before making video records that they will do so; and
(4) of the uses and means of disposal of the information collected by the Police by using video-recording devices; the monitoring mechanism the Police have in place to prevent police officers from making video records of public assemblies and processions arbitrarily?
Reply:
President,
Since 2006, the Police have been using hand-held video recording devices to record incidents with law and order implications for investigation and evidential purposes. Our reply to the various parts of the Member's question is as follows:
(1), (3) and (4) The Police may make video records of individual public order events (POEs) on a need basis for case investigation, evidential, internal review and strategy evaluation purposes, and as an on-going effort to augment the management and response capabilities of the Police in handling POEs. The Police do not target at individual participants during video-recording. Only if a breach of the peace or public order is likely to occur, or has occurred, or if there are persons suspected of committing criminal offences, will the behaviour of such persons suspected of causing a breach of the peace and the course of the incident become the subject of video-filming. In case the focus is on any particular persons, police officers shall, where reasonably practicable, notify such persons prior to the commencement of the recording.
In the above circumstances, it is reasonable and lawful for the Police to take evidence by video-filming those who are suspected to have violated the law.
The Police have formulated detailed internal guidelines and operational procedures to regulate the use and operation of video-recording devices during POEs, as well as the handling of recorded information. Such procedures are drawn up to ensure that police officers comply with the requirements of the Personal Data (Privacy) Ordinance and exhibit handling procedures and guidelines laid down by the court. Professional training is also provided to police officers to ensure that they are conversant with the use of video-recording devices and relevant laws and guidelines.
On another front, the Police do not make video records of POEs regularly. No officers are allowed to carry video-recording devices to stand-by in the vicinity of a POE venue unless they have obtained authorisation from officers of the rank of Chief Superintendent or above. Only under specific circumstances shall a video team be allowed to record a POE as clearly instructed by officers of the rank of Superintendent or above. Officers using hand-held video-recording devices shall be identifiable by wearing uniforms or vests with the wordings "¾¯²ì" and "POLICE".
No captured footage shall be retained by the Police unless for investigation, evidential or internal review purposes. The Police have clear and strict guidelines and procedures on handling the recorded information in order to ensure, inter alia, the safe custody, proper handling and timely destruction of captured footage. Footage with investigative or evidential value will be treated as case exhibits to be retained until the conclusion of the investigation and court proceedings, and shall then be destroyed. Footage carrying no investigative or evidential value shall be deleted after 31 days from the date of production. If the footage is to be retained for more than 31 days, authorisation from a Senior Superintendent shall be obtained and such an authorisation shall be reviewed on a monthly basis by the authorising officer.
(2) During the public meeting at Chater Road on January 1, 2014, police officers took footage near the pedestrian subway at Chater Road pedestrian precinct and in the vicinity of Statue Square. The officers concerned were all in uniform, overtly using hand-held video-recorders to take the footage. The video-recording was carried out in accordance with the guidelines and relevant procedures of the Police.
During that public meeting, the Police came to know that some demonstrators were suspected to have embezzled the luggage trolleys of the Airport Express, and that the behaviour of some demonstrators had caused the police officers on spot to believe there could be breach of the peace. Such act and behaviour then became the subject of video recording.
Ends/Wednesday, February 19, 2014
Issued at HKT 15:55
NNNN