The seizure of Hui Hui’s notebook on 10 Oct 2014 by the police after recording her statement (for an alleged “unlawful assembly” offence at Hong Lim Park on 27 Sep 2014 in relation to her “Return our CPF protest” gathering at the Speakers Corner there) raises some interesting points.
Her lawyer Ravi says “This personal record (in notebook) was prepared so that she (Hui Hui) would have accurate details of the matters in question for her legal advisers, and as such it constituted a privileged legal communication.”
Police, in reply to Ravi, says “Your client’s notebook is not a document covered by a legal professional privilege.”
The stand taken by both parties is contentious and the public is unsure who is right and who is wrong. To clear the air on this the AG Chambers and/or the Law Society should clarify the actual legal position on this matter. If both entities choose to remain silent, perhaps the WP can raise this issue in parliament for clarity.
By returning the notebook and within the dateline as demanded by Ravi, the police seem to have conceded some ground already.
The Central Police Division had many hours in hand before Hui Hui presented herself for the interview Knowing she is a hard nut to crack (shall we say as being anti-PAP and highly critical of the government) the police should have worked out a pre-plan and acted more intelligently. If you don’t want her to take notes, why did you not stop her initially instead of allowing her to do so and thereafter decide to seize her notebook?
It is obvious that the decision to seize the notebook did not come from the Investigation Officer (IO) but, in all probability, from a higher officer when the former referred the case for a ‘directive’.
In this case there are available means whereby the police can have what they want from the notebook and at the same time return it to Hui Hui at the end of the interview session. If any senior officer was sure-footed enough to take this option, will the police high command go after this officer like a ton of bricks?
This reminds me of what our late Dr Goh Keng Swee said about the need for civil servants to exercise initiative some 40 years back. He said to the effect that a civil servant who takes the initiative to decide on a matter in good faith and who in the process makes occasional mistakes is preferable to one who refers everything to higher-ups for decision.
Hawking Eye