- Joined
- Dec 30, 2010
- Messages
- 12,730
- Points
- 113
Ravi letter to SPF: seizure of notebook unlawful & breach of HH's rights
Today, M Ravi wrote another strongly worded letter to the Police emphasising that they had no right to seize her notebook and they were acting unlawfully.
He referred to the statement of a Police Spokesperson as quoted by the Straits Times, which claimed that the police had seized the notebook under section 35(1)(c) of the Criminal Procedure Code but he rebutted this argument saying this law was inapplicable.
Under Section 35, police can only seize property which is suspected to be evidence of an offence.
As Ms Han was only taking notes of the questions police had asked her, her notes could not be considered evidence of any offence. Therefore, Section 35 did not apply and the police had “seriously infringed” Ms Han’s rights.
Here is the full letter sent to the Police by M Ravi:
http://therealsingapore.com/content...ok-was-unlawful-and-serious-breach-her-rights
Today, M Ravi wrote another strongly worded letter to the Police emphasising that they had no right to seize her notebook and they were acting unlawfully.
He referred to the statement of a Police Spokesperson as quoted by the Straits Times, which claimed that the police had seized the notebook under section 35(1)(c) of the Criminal Procedure Code but he rebutted this argument saying this law was inapplicable.
Under Section 35, police can only seize property which is suspected to be evidence of an offence.
As Ms Han was only taking notes of the questions police had asked her, her notes could not be considered evidence of any offence. Therefore, Section 35 did not apply and the police had “seriously infringed” Ms Han’s rights.
Here is the full letter sent to the Police by M Ravi:
http://therealsingapore.com/content...ok-was-unlawful-and-serious-breach-her-rights