國安法下，紅線處處。記者報道，亦越紅線？
據報，涉事人為《看中國》前記者，7.1當日在案發現場進行直播，警方其後接觸她在內的數名記者。該名記者在記協安排的律師陪同下，於事發翌日到灣仔警察總部，錄取口供。警方當時承諾，日後如有需要聯絡事主，會透過律師聯絡，亦會知會記協。當時警方亦表明，該名記者的身份是「協助調查」。
昨晚深夜11時許，國安處突然到記者的暫時住所要求再次錄口供，在處所進行搜屋。警方違反承諾，沒有透過其律師預約及知會記協。
事主其後在國安處人員陪同下致電律師，表示無須律師陪同。事主之後再被帶返其原本住所搜屋。
據記協了解，事主已被錄取警戒口供，並被扣留旅遊證件。香港記者協會主席陳朗昇確認，警方曾向記者的代表律師稱，記者目前「助查」，沒有指她是嫌疑人。他又說有警員曾以不恰當言辭，令涉事記者一度放棄聯絡律師。
記協深夜出稿譴責警方，指「一名記者在直播期間拍攝到疑似罪案的發生，只不過是履足其新聞工作者的本份，而事主亦已盡其市民責任，協助警方調查，只應當受到認可，絕不應蒙此對待。」、「會否將來擔當證人，或可能擔當證人的人士，均有被沒收旅遊證件的風險？」並再次強調「此事件已等同威脅全港的新聞工作者，若記錄事件亦會令自己蒙上嫌疑，記者如何能繼續安心工作？」
查錫我說：奇怪，警方無拘捕佢，有乜權扣起證件？助查並不是法律用語，十分含糊。是證人身份，還是受嫌疑身份？（警方）要講清楚。如果是證人身份，更加無權扣留證件。
Under the National Security Law, red lines are everywhere. Journalists reporting might cross the red line?
Hong Kong Journalists Association (HKJA) stated that a reporter was asked to assist the National Security Department of the police in investigating the police stabbing case on July 1 this year. However, on Monday (26th) her house was searched and all travel documents were retained, and a cautionary statement was given. Barrister Stephen Char said that the police have the responsibility to explain whether the reporter is a suspect or a witness.
According to reports, the person involved is a former reporter from Vision Times. On July 1, a live broadcast was conducted at the scene of the crime. The police later contacted several reporters including her. The reporter, accompanied by a lawyer arranged by the Journalist Association, went to the Wan Chai Police Headquarters the day after the incident to make a statement. The police promised at that time that if there is a need to contact the reporter in the future, they will contact through her lawyer and will also inform HKJA. The police also stated that the status of the reporter was “assisting in investigations.”
At 11 pm last night, the National Security Office suddenly went to the reporter’s temporary residence and asked her to make another statement and searched the premises. The police renege on their promise and failed to contact her through her lawyer nor inform HKJA .
The reporter later called the lawyer accompanied by the staff of the National Security Office, stating that she did not need a lawyer. She was then taken back to her original residence for a search.
HKJA understands that the reporter has been given a cautionary statement and her travel documents have been detained. Ronsen Chan, chairman of HKJA, confirmed that the police had told the reporter’s lawyer that the reporter was currently “assisting an investigation” and did not refer to her as a suspect. He also said that a police officer had used inappropriate remarks to make the reporter gave up contacting the lawyer.
HKJA issued statement late last night condemning the police, saying that “a reporter who videoed a suspected crime during the live broadcast was merely fulfilling one’s duty as a journalist, and the reporter has also done her civic duty to assist the police in the investigation. She should receive recognition and should never be treated like this.”, “Will anyone servinh as a witness or who might serve as a witness be at risk of having their travel documents confiscated?” And once again emphasized that “this incident is equivalent to threatening all journalists in Hong Kong However, if recording incidents will also cast suspicion on oneself, how can reporters continue to work with a peace of mind?”
Char said: Strange, the police did not arrest her but has the right to seize the documents? Assisting in investigation is not a legal term and is very vague. Is she a witness or a suspect? (Police) should make it clear. If one is a witness, you have no right to retain one’s documents.
