police m ravi
Human Rights Lawyer, Mr M Ravi has delivered a letter to the Singapore Police Force on the seizure of the notebook of his client, Ms Han Hui Hui who was called up for an interview on 10 October 2014.
This is in response to the police’s statement reported on local newspaper, The Straits Times, saying that the police ‘have the right to hold notebook’ of Ms Han.
police letter
In his letter, Mr Ravi states that the Section 35(1)(c) of the Criminal Procedure Code clearly does not empower the police to seize Ms Han’s notebook during her interview.
Although section 35 does give the police, power to seize property if there is suspicion by the police that the property is suspected to constitute evidence of an offence .
However, such suspicion cannot be based only on the police officer’s subjective belief but must at least be based on objective and rational grounds.
He added that, “We are puzzled as to how a record of statements made by the police can be evidence of an offence.”
22-year old Ms Han was questioned by police for seven hours on Friday, 10th Oct in its investigations over a possible offence of unlawful assembly during the CPF protest event which Ms Han had organised on 27th September 2014.
The following is an extract from Mr Ravi’s letter to the police.

The Straits Times newspaper article dated 17 October 2014 reported that a police spokesman had said, ‘under Section 35(1)(c) of the Criminal Procedure Code, the police had a right to seize any item “suspected to constitute evidence of an offence”’.
Section 35(1)(c) of the Criminal Procedure Code (“the CPC”) provides:-
“A police officer may seize, or prohibit the disposal of or dealing in, any property… which is suspected to constitute evidence of an offence”
We do not see how it is possible for a record of our client’s interview with the Senior Investigation Officer to constitute evidence of the alleged offence(s) that our client is being investigated for.
It is true that Section 35(1)(c) of the CPC provides that suspicion alone is sufficient to give rise to an officer’s power to seize property. However, the general law mandates that such suspicion cannot be based only on the officer’s subjective belief but must at least be based on objective and rational grounds.
At the highest, which in any event is denied, such a written record may constitute a statement of facts by our client. In this regard, we note that it would be curious and unnecessary to seize our client’s record of what transpired during the interview.
We are puzzled as to how a record of statements made by the police can be evidence of an offence. A record of statements made to the police is or may be evidence of an offence but you do not need to retain our client’s version of that unless you are saying you did not do your own note taking.
Our client’s position therefore is that Section 35(1)(c) of the CPC clearly does not empower the Officer to seize our client’s notebook.
It is our view that the Officer’s actions in seizing the notebook is made more serious by the fact that the written record contained in the notebook is litigation privileged. It is made pursuant to, and for the express purpose of preparing for potential litigation. We reiterate therefore that the notebook and its contents are privileged.
The unauthorised seizure of our client’s property, which contents are privileged, seriously infringes what is due to her under the law.

The police have delivered and returned the seized notebook to Ms Han’s home at around 8 pm, yesterday.

Subscribe
Notify of
65 Comments
Newest
Oldest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
You May Also Like

【冠状病毒19】6月14日新增407例确诊

根据卫生部文告,截至本月14日中午12时,本地新增 407 例冠状病毒19确诊。 新增病患大多为住宿舍工作准证持有者。今增九例社区病例,其中四人为新加坡公民或永久居民,另五人是工作证件持有者。 本地累计确诊病例已增至4万0604 例。当局仍在搜集病例详情并将在晚些时候公布。

傅海燕称NETS争议广告无恶意,但“美丽求求你”讽刺视频不妥

今年7月底,闹得沸沸扬扬的电子支付平台NETS广告风波引起热议,除了广告公司和艺人周崇庆致歉,网红“美丽求求你”(Preetipls)也因为拍摄讽刺视频,被警方介入调查,并发出24个月有条件警告。 昨日(10日),文化、社区及青年部长傅海燕在一项活动上重提此事,她表示并不觉得NETS广告有任何冒犯之意,反而是网红“美丽求求你“的讽刺视频使用侮辱性语言, 行为实属不妥。 傅海燕昨日受邀至义顺星烁初级学院参与种族和谐资源中心OnePeople.SG的第五届模拟联合国大会,在对话会上,学生重提争议广告。 对此,傅海燕坦言她个人认为对于周崇庆所饰演的角色并没有感到任何问题,并表示周崇庆当时只是在演好反串的角色,而且他所扮演的人物并具贬损意味,只是在描绘一个“普通人”的角色,如家庭主妇或是工人。 指基层领导反映广告未冒犯印裔 她补充道,针对此事,询问大多数基层领导,包括印度人,均不认为广告具有冒犯之意。 傅海燕表示,NETS广告是想向公众传达一个讯息,即付费平台能够为所有人使用,无论是何种背景、种族的人。 不过,针对网红“美丽求求你“的视频,她则认为“是不同的问题”,因为视频内,网红使用了污秽的语言,指责了广告里的艺人不敏感。 她也解释,网红“美丽求求你”也曾出现取笑华人新年的视频,这样的做法也被视为是不敏感的行为。 “美丽求求你讽刺华人新年” “如果我们放过视频,不采取任何行动,在各族间盛怒之下,万一华人也开始采取类似的侮辱性视频,这对种族间的关系又会产生什么影响?”她解释。…

“Democracy in Singapore will have a sad day if all the alternative parties are wiped out in this election” says PSP’s Leong Mun Wai

“Democracy in Singapore will have a sad day if all the alternative…

考量疫情局势 人协决定取消今年斋戒月市集

有鉴于武汉冠状病毒(COVID-19)疫情,人民协会宣布将取消所有斋戒月市集。 受影响的斋戒月市集包括芽笼士乃大厦、兀兰和淡滨尼天地市集。 人协指这是考量到市集届时将吸引大批人潮,为了减少群众和接触,避免传染风险,才决定暂停举办非必要活动。 不过已得标的商家主办方仍会按条约处理,保障他们的利益。至于目前仍在进行的市集和商展,人协表示当局采取防疫措施如现场量体温、提供洗手液等。 早前,我国防疫跨部门工作小组在本月13日宣布,由于此前发生有聚会出现感染群的案例,举凡超过250人出席的活动受促延后或取消。