Over a hundred protestors sieged Mongkok Police Station on 21 September. Police dispersed the crowd and arrested an accounting student from PolyU, claiming that lighter fuel, hammer and bottle with cloth strip was found in his backpack. The student was charged with possession of offensive public weapon in public place, and the case was heard this morning. Source said that the defendant would accuse police officers for spying on the phone passcode of the accused, and for forging his signature on the consent form for access to his phone. The accused also claimed to be beaten up by baton within four minutes of arriving at the police station, which caused him swollen eyes and temporary loss of vision.
Police Peep at Mobile Passcode to Retrieve Data from 921 Arrestees and Forge Signature on Consent Forms. Arrestees are Baton-Beaten with Vision Lost
The case was scheduled to be heard this morning, but the plaintiff called a new witness. The plaintiff disclosed the way of mobile phone inspection, which was to make a full copy of phone data, investigate, and to claim that the the accused voluntarily gave away the passcode. The defendant raised questions regarding the exhibits, including the data retrieved from mobile phone. It was expected to affect the trial, and the planned two-day trial period might not be enough.
The defendant reiterated that the accused was framed
The barrister of the defendant pointed out that the case was first heard in court last September, and the accused was remanded in custody till now, but the evidence was only sent to the defendant two days ago on New Year’s Eve. The police did not exercise their duty of care and delayed the disclosure of information, and the defendants deny the copied phone data as exhibits.
The defendant also complained about the excessive force used by the police during the arrest. Within four minutes of arriving at the police station, without taking any action, his left eye was beaten swollen with police baton to the point of temporarily losing vision. The defendant doubted whether a formal consent is possible under assault and with vision temporarily lost .
Regarding the charge, the defendant reiterated that the respondent was framed with evidence, and the plaintiff was unable to prove the exhibits belong to the defendant. The case was adjourned until the afternoon.
Mobile phone data includes photos of helmets
22-year-old NG Chun-wai was charged with possession of offensive weapon in public place under section 33 of Public Order Ordinance. He was said to possess a bottle with cloth strip, lighter fuel and a hammer on 21 September, 2019 at the junction of Nathan Road in Mongkok and Prince Edward Road West. He denied the charge.
Outside of the court, the defendant claimed to be injured in the Mongkok Station, and the phone data accessed included some photographs of helmets. The defendant did not agree that the phone and the passcode was voluntarily given out, and the police was said to spy on the passcode for evidence on the phone data copy. The police was also said to have forged the defendant’s signature on a consent form of obtaining the mobile phone.