Activist Jolovan Wham threatened by police officer recording statement: lawyer
An investigation officer had threatened to charge Jolovan Wham if he did not sign a police statement, a court heard on the first day of the activist’s trial.
Lawyer Eugene Thuraisingam referred to the alleged incident during the trial on Monday (1 October) at the State Courts.
Wham, who is a social worker at Community Action Network, is contesting charges related to an event on 26 November 2016 where prominent Hong Kong student activist Joshua Wong Chi-Fung addressed the audience through a live Skype call.
Wham, 38, faces one count of organising a public assembly, titled “Civil Disobedience and Social Movements”, at The AGORA, Sin Min Lane, without a license. The event required a police permit due to Wong’s involvement as he was a foreigner.
Wham also faces one count of refusing to sign a police statement related to the same event recorded on 20 December 2016. His other charges – protesting on an MRT train and outside a prison on separate occasions – were stood down for the current trial.
On Monday (1 October), the court heard that Wham was advised to apply for a permit by a police officer three days before the event but he had not done so. He co-organised the event with Rachael Zeng Ruiqing, who is not facing any charge.
The first witness to testify on Monday was Investigating Officer (IO) Lee Ting Wei, who holds the rank of Deputy Superintendent (DSP). The IO said he commenced investigations into the incident on 1 December 2016 and first recorded a statement from Wham on 20 December 2016.
According to DSP Lee, 7,600 people were invited to the event through Facebook, and 336 people had indicated that they were interested to attend.
Wham had refused to sign the statement as it was his “personal practice” to sign documents for which he would get a copy of, said DSP Lee. He had asked for a copy of his statement but was refused, on the grounds that the statement was a confidential police document, the IO added.
In response, Thuraisingam said that DSP Lee had “threatened” to charge Wham if he did not sign the statement. “You told him that if he did not sign, you will charge him, correct?” said Thuraisingam.
Denying the allegation, DSP Lee said, “I merely informed (Wham) that (his actions) may constitute an offence under the Penal Code.” He added that it was his first time encountering an interviewee who had refused to sign a statement over the one year and five months that he had been an IO.
Thuraisingam also said that DSP Lee had left out a part of Wham’s reason for not signing the statement.
“You told the prosecution that Wham said it was his personal practice to sign only what he had a copy of… He said he would not be signing the statement as he advocates for migrant workers to have a copy of whatever they sign, and he practised what he preached,” he added.
DSP Lee replied that he left out Wham’s reply about migrant workers as he had presented to the prosecution the “gist” of what Wham had said in the statement.
The trial will continue on Tuesday.
