Social News
Written by: Zhu Dixin
2020-08-13 18:44
Last update date: 2020-08-13 18:46Martin Lee, He Junren, Ou Nuoxuan, Shan Zhongkai, and Yang Sen were involved in participating in an unauthorized assembly last year. They were arrested in April this year and their phones were seized by the police. The police searched the phones for a warrant two months later. Only five people filed for judicial review, demanding that the warrants be cancelled. The case was heard in the High Court today (13th). The applicant questioned that the scope of the warrant to allow searches is too wide, the boundaries of the search should be specified, and the applicant should also be allowed to participate in the hearing of the warrant. However, the police retorted that this request was not feasible. After hearing the submissions, the judge adjourned the sentencing and is expected to issue the results in writing within this month.
The case is heard by two judges
5 applicants: Martin Lee, He Chunyan, Shan Zhongkai, Au Nuoxuan and Yang Sen. The respondent was the Magistrate of the Eastern Magistracy and the Commissioner of Police. The applicant obtained a temporary restraining order earlier, prohibiting the police from executing the warrant involved in the case. It was a judicial review case, which was tried by two judges, Li Yunteng and Gao Haowen.
The applicant's search scope is too wide
Senior Counsel Pang Yiu-hung, who represented the applicant, pointed out that the scope of the warrant allowed to be searched was too wide to search for "all digital data" in mobile phones. Peng believes that the warrant should specify the boundaries of the search, such as the period involved in the searched data. Peng emphasized that this approach not only protects those who are searched, but also protects those who are searched to prevent them from facing the relevant legal consequences because they exceed the scope of the warrant during the search.
However, Judge Li Yunteng pointed out that the magistrate has to process multiple applications for warrants every day. Can the search boundary be set for each case?
Believes that the defense should be involved in the warrant hearing
Peng Yaohong also believes that the handling of such warrants should not be done unilaterally. The prosecution and defendant representatives should be heard on the court so that the magistrate can listen to the arguments of both parties. Peng agrees that most of the applications for warrants require unilateral hearings due to investigations. However, the applicants involved have already been arrested and prosecuted, and their cases will also be referred to the District Court. He believes that the warrant hearings are not urgent Sex.
The police will seal up for 7 days for the defense to act
Senior Counsel Mok Shulian, who represents the police, will only issue a warrant after consideration by the magistrate. After the warrant is issued, the person searched can apply for revocation of the warrant or apply for review by the Secretary. In this case, the police also indicated to the applicant that the mobile phone involved in the case would be sealed for 7 days to allow the applicant to take legal action, and the magistrate involved set a deadline for the execution of the warrant.
For the applicant's request, the search boundary should be specified on the warrant. Mo Shulian pointed out that it is difficult for the magistrate to specify the limit line on the warrant. In addition, if both the prosecution and the defendant attend the hearing of the warrant application, procedures such as document exchange are required, which will affect the progress of the investigation.
Case number: HCAL 1396/2020
The case of Martin Lee and others seeking a ban on mobile phone investigations alleges that the police prosecutor has not obtained a warrant for two months
National Security Law｜Eavesdropping and tracking do not require a court order. The chief executive can approve secret surveillance by police and national security departments
Mobile phone message records are included as evidence Huang Zhifeng claims that he has not received a warrant for access, questioning infringement of privacy
Martin Lee injunction order judicial review court
