何廷儒（盛港集选区议员）女士询问内政部长：

(a) 能否详细说明总检察长在最近一个案件中提出的意见，该意见指出，2008 年《精神健康（护理和治疗）法》（MHCTA）中使用的“拘捕”与其他涉及使用警察权力的条款中使用的“逮捕”之间没有实际差异？

 (b) 已经采取或将采取哪些具体措施来保障根据《精神健康（护理和治疗）法》 被拘捕人员的宪法权利？

尚穆根（内政部长）先生：在高等法院“Mah Kiat Seng 诉总检察长”一案中（Mah Kiat Seng vs AG），总检察长办公室认为，2008年《精神健康（护理和治疗）法》（MHCTA） 中使用的“拘捕”一词与其他立法（如《刑事诉讼法》CPC）中使用的“逮捕”一词并无实际区别。这是在解释警方在“拘捕”和“逮捕”方面的法律权力和职责时向法庭提出的一个法律论点，因为《刑事诉讼法》只明确规定了“逮捕”的权力，而没有规定“拘捕”的权力。

正如内政部第二部长在《执法和其他事项法案》二读期间所解释的，高等法院在 2023 年的判决中裁定，《精神健康（护理和治疗）法》规定的“拘押”有别于《刑事诉讼法》规定的“逮捕”。这意味着警方在行使“拘捕”时并没有某些与“逮捕”相关的权力。

例如，警方无法确保根据《精神健康（护理和治疗）法》“拘捕”的人在移交给医疗机构工作人员之前没有藏匿危险武器或物品。这种做法是站不住脚的，因为这会危及被“拘捕”者、警察和医务人员的安全。

因此，我们已修订法律，明确规定警方在根据《精神健康（护理和治疗）法》进行“拘捕”时，也可以行使“逮捕”相关的基本权力，例如搜查和扣押。尽管如此，警方将以应有的审慎和尊重态度，对根据《精神健康（护理和治疗）法》被“拘捕”的人进行搜查和扣押。那些仅根据《精神健康（护理和治疗）法》被“拘捕”的人将被带到医生那里，而不是被带到警方的拘留所。他们也不会被起诉。

这些修正案不影响根据《精神健康（护理和治疗）法》被"拘捕"的人的宪法权利。

 Ms He Ting Ru asked the Minister for Home Affairs (a) whether an elaboration can be provided on the Attorney-General's submissions made in a recent case which stated that there was no practical difference between the terms "apprehend" as deployed in the Mental Health (Care and Treatment) Act 2008 (MHCTA) and "arrest" as utilised in other provisions involving the use of police powers; and (b) what specific steps have been or will be taken to safeguard the constitutional right of persons apprehended under the MHCTA.

Mr K Shanmugam: In the High Court case of Mah Kiat Seng vs AG, the Attorney-General's Chambers took the position that there was no practical difference between the terms "apprehend", as used in the Mental Health (Care and Treatment) Act 2008 or MHCTA, and "arrest", as used in other legislation, such as the Criminal Procedure Code or CPC. This was a legal argument raised before the court, in the context of explaining the Police's legal powers and duties in relation to apprehensions and arrests, as the CPC only explicitly specifies the powers of arrest and not apprehension.

As explained by the Second Minister for Home Affairs during the Second Reading of the Law Enforcement and Other Matters Bill, the High Court judgment in 2023 determined that apprehensions under the MHCTA are distinct from arrests under the CPC. This meant that the Police would not have certain powers associated with arrest, when making apprehensions.

For example, the Police would not be able to ensure that a person apprehended under the MHCTA was not hiding dangerous weapons or items before the individual is handed over to the staff of a medical facility. This is not tenable, as it endangers the safety of the apprehended individual, Police officers and the medical staff.

We have thus amended the law to make clear that essential powers associated with arrests, such as those of search and seizure, are also available to the Police when making apprehensions under the MHCTA. Nevertheless, Police officers will carry out search and seizure of persons apprehended under the MHCTA with due care and respect. Those who are apprehended solely under the MHCTA would be brought to a medical practitioner and not to a Police lock-up. They would also not be prosecuted.

These amendments do not affect the constitutional rights of a person apprehended under the MHCTA.