14-day detention of suspects arrested under Hong Kong’s domestic security law enough time for investigation, security minister says

Lawmaker Stanley Ng Chau-pei said: “There is no hard indicator on how long a detention period would guarantee the protection of human rights … what happens if you cannot finish within 14 days?”

Lawmakers raised their concerns as scrutiny of the Safeguarding National Security Bill continued, with at least 76 out of 181 of the legislation’s clauses vetted since Friday.

The bill, which targets five types of offences, fulfils the city’s constitutional obligations. The proposed offences are treason, secession, sedition, subversion against the central government, and theft of state secrets. The proposed law, required by the Basic Law mini-constitution, would sit alongside the national security law imposed by Beijing in 2020.

Hong Kong allows police to detain a suspect for 48 hours without charge, and the proposed law would grant them an additional 14 days.

Day 3 of discussion of security law covers state secrets, espionage and sabotage

Approval by a magistrate is needed, with the extension only justified if police are unable to reasonably complete the investigation before the date of the application, and the detention is necessary for securing or preserving evidence.

The security chief offered reassurances that a 14-day detention period would afford sufficient time.

“In the past, we have seen suspects in cases who were not charged during the 48-hour detention period and were released on bail and absconded,” Tang said. “By extending the detention period, we can avoid these circumstances and 14 days should be enough for us.”

Britain allows suspects in national security cases to be held without charge for up to 28 days without the need to obtain permission from the courts, while in Singapore, the period can last up to two years. But Tang said the government needed to ensure the protection of human rights.

“If necessary, a movement restriction order could be imposed on an arrestee given bail, for example, by requiring him or her to live in a specific place … this will serve as a good balance,” he said.

No early release for those jailed in Hong Kong for endangering national security

Under such an order, an arrestee can be required to live in a specific place and barred from entering an area or from communicating with certain people for a period of time. The order is valid for three months and can be extended for a month each time, subject to a magistrate’s decision.

Vernon Loh, senior assistant solicitor general of the Department of Justice, said extensions under the Article 23 law would not result in arbitrary detention because power for prolonging the time rested with the courts.

“Not a single minute would be used to exploit anyone’s freedom of movement, if not necessary,” justice minister Paul Lam Ting-kwok said.

Police would also be able to submit an application to a magistrate to ban an arrested suspect from consulting certain lawyers if doing so could endanger national security or cause bodily harm to a person, hinder the recovery of the benefits of the alleged crime or pervert the course of justice.

The court order also applies to other lawyers from the same firm and lawyers chosen by the banned legal practitioner.

Chinese vice-premier urges ‘necessary’ swift Article 23 enactment in Hong Kong

Lam stressed that the ban only applied to the detention period, and would not affect the arrestees’ right to consult lawyers in other stages of the trial.

Lawmakers Kennedy Wong Ying-ho and Tommy Cheung Yu-yan said they were concerned whether such a decision by the courts could be challenged.

Wong said he found the arrangement unfair to lawyers, whose reputation could be affected if the court denied a suspect’s bid to retain the counsel.

But Ivan Leung, acting principal government counsel, said the procedure would be conducted through closed-door hearings, with the identity of the lawyers being considered remaining anonymous.

“Being banned by the court does not necessarily mean issues with the lawyers’ professional conduct … it does not have to do with the lawyers, but the arrestees,” he said.

Acting officer Daphne Siu Man-suen at the Department of Justice added that orders by magistrates were subject to judicial review.