警方阻礙律師為被捕人士提供協助，這隨時可令警方索取對檢控工作較有利的證供；而阻礙律師與被捕人士會面，更令被捕人的各項權利容易受到警方侵犯，例如遭警員毆打或不恰當地搜身；警方的做法是完全違反被捕人士的人權及法律權利。
——————————
新聞稿
2019年8月27日
促請警方尊重被捕示威者的人權及法律權利
民權觀察於6月9日至今，一直為因示威活動而被捕的人士提供緊急法律支援，包括委派義務律師前往警署及羈留設施協助被捕人士，以保障他們的法律權利及基本人權。我們認為警方於今日的記者會中，指警方在羈留安排中已保障被捕人士及時取得法律協助的說法與事實不符。民權觀察的回應如下：
1. 於2019年8月11日，警方在示威活動中拘捕54人。民權觀察連同其他團體的義務律師，合共超過10名義務律師，立即趕往新屋嶺拘留中心，要求與被捕人士進行法律探訪，但只有2至3位律師可以成功進行法律探訪，大部份律師遭警方拒絕或不合理地延遲法律探訪的要求；
2. 根據義務律師的報告，警方在新屋嶺羈留中心只安排了一間會面室及一間茶水間予律師與被捕人士會面；警員並不容許律師關上房門，令整個法律探訪在私隱度極低的情況下進行，有違《基本法》下保障市民秘密諮詢法律意見的權利；警方並在其後拒絕律師於茶水間與被捕人士見面，結果在整個新屋嶺拘留中心只有一間會面室供律師與被捕人士見面，令律師的法律探訪工作嚴重受阻；
3. 根據義務律師的報告，由於警方不合理地阻礙被捕人士與律師見面的權利，被捕人士普遍地未能即時地獲得法律協助；多名被捕人士在未與律師見面前已被警方錄取警誡供詞；有被捕人士曾向警方作出見律師的要求達50多次，仍未能成功與律師見面，直至警方向他索取警誡供詞後才可與律師見面；此外，有3位被捕人士在要求見律師的24小時後才成功獲安排與律師會面，但他們在沒有律師在場的情況下被警方錄取警誡供詞；
4. 民權觀察質疑警方是刻意阻礙律師為被捕人士提供協助，令警方可以索取對檢控工作較有利的證供；而阻礙律師與被捕人士會面，更令被捕人的各項權利容易受到警方侵犯，例如遭警員毆打或不恰當地搜身；警方的做法是完全違反被捕人士的法律權利；
5.警方聲稱安排新屋嶺拘留中心是為了有足夠的空間及設施處理大量被捕人士，從而可以更好地保障他們的權利；然而根據義務律師的真實經驗，警方的說法明顯地與現實情況不符；同時，警方在一個拘留中心只安排一間會面室供律師與被捕人士見面是不合理及明顯的安排失當，漠視被捕人士的法律權利；
6. 聯合國禁止酷刑委員會於2016年曾向香港政府作出建議，要求香港政府保障被捕人士的權利，包括被捕人士有權在沒有延誤下立即得到律師的協助，以及取得及時和所需的醫療服務。民權觀察促請警方根據禁止酷刑委員會的建議改善做法，保障被捕人士的權利。
From: Civil Rights Observer
Issued on 27 August 2019
Police Urged to Respect the Human Rights and Legal Rights of Arrested Persons
Since 9 June, Civil Rights Observer has been providing emergency legal support for those arrested as a result of the ongoing demonstrations. This includes assigning pro bono lawyers to police stations and detention facilities to provide legal services to arrested persons, in order to protect their legal rights and basic human rights. In its press conference today, the Police asserted that they made the necessary arrangements to enable arrested persons to exercise their right to timely legal assistance. However, we believe that such assertions are far from the truth. The response of Civil Rights Observer is as follows:
1. On 11 August 2019, 54 persons were arrested during the demonstration. Over 10 pro bono lawyers from various organisations, including Civil Rights Observer, immediately rushed to San Uk Ling Holding Centre to request legal visits with the arrested persons. However, only 2 to 3 lawyers were able to successfully conduct their legal visits, as the majority of lawyers faced either rejections or unreasonable delays from the Police in meeting their clients;
2. According to reports from pro bono lawyers, the Police arranged one interview room and one pantry at the San Uk Ling Holding Centre for lawyers to meet with arrested persons. While conducting legal visits, Police officers prohibited lawyers from closing the door, causing the legal visits to be conducted in an extremely low-privacy setting. Such conduct violates the Basic Law guarantee of the right to confidential legal advice. Subsequently, the Police rejected requests from lawyers to meet arrested persons in the pantry, resulting in there only being one interview room in the entire San Uk Ling Holding Centre for legal visits, seriously hindering lawyers from conducting their work;
3. According to reports from pro bono lawyers, arrested persons were generally unable to exercise their right to obtain immediate legal assistance due to unreasonable obstructions from the Police. Many arrested persons were made to give cautioned statements before they had a chance to meet with their lawyer. There was also one reported case where an arrested person made 50 requests to meet with their lawyer, but was unable to do so until after they gave a cautioned statement with the Police. Furthermore, there were 3 cases where arrested persons were only able to obtain a legal visit 24 hours after making their initial request to meet their lawyer, but these 3 arrested persons had already given cautioned statements without the presence of their lawyers;
4. Civil Rights Observer questions whether the Police deliberately obstructed lawyers from providing legal assistance to arrested persons, in order to obtain more favourable prosecution evidence. By obstructing lawyers from meeting with their clients, arrested persons are more susceptible to various violations by the Police, such as being beaten by Police or having to undergo improper body searches. Such conduct by the Police completely violates the legal rights of arrested persons;
5. The Police allegedly arranged for arrested persons to be detained at San Uk Ling Holding Centre because it has sufficient space and facilities to manage large numbers of arrested persons, enabling the Police to better guarantee the rights of arrested persons. However, according to the experience of pro bono lawyers, such assertions by the Police are far from reality, considering that only one interview room was arranged for lawyers to meet with arrested persons. This is clearly unreasonable and is an obvious sign of mismanagement on the part of the Police, who have disregarded the legal rights of arrested persons;
6. In its 2016 Concluding Observations on Hong Kong, the United Nations Committee Against Torture recommended that the Hong Kong Government guarantee the rights of arrested persons, including the right to obtain legal assistance without delay, and the right to obtain timely and required medical services. Civil Rights Observer urges the Police to improve their practices according to the recommendations by the Committee Against Torture, in order to adequately protect the rights of arrested persons.
——————————
我們正在發起眾籌，請支持民權觀察的三大計劃：
1. 警暴受害者支援平台 2. 緊急法律支援 3.人權觀察員計劃
PAYPAL/網上信用卡: https://www.hkcro.org/fundraising/
銀行轉帳：328-82-58581-5 Civic Incubator Limited, 上海商業銀行
