An immigration officer on Thursday denied allegations that officers unlawfully detained and pressured suspects into making confessions, as the trial of six Filipino domestic helpers accused of operating an unlicensed dental clinic in Sham Shui Po entered its sixth day.
The six defendants had faced charges including breaching their conditions of stay, aiding and abetting an unregistered person to practice dentistry, and helping others breach their conditions of stay.
Two defendants previously pleaded guilty, while two others were acquitted on Wednesday of charges related to practicing dentistry without registration.
The remaining two defendants continued to stand trial on Thursday, with defense lawyer Yasmine Zahir challenging the legality of their arrests and the admissibility of their statements.
An assistant immigration officer surnamed Chan told the court that he had worked in the Foreign Domestic Helpers Unit for eight months before the arrests on August 17, 2025.
Chan confirmed that it was not his first arrest operation. He had earlier acknowledged that a “Notice to Persons in Custody” was issued after a notebook inquiry was conducted.
He agreed that he drafted and issued the notice after the defendant had been taken to the Immigration Department office.
However, Chan maintained that the defendant had been told at the scene why she was being detained, although she was not informed of the detailed alleged offenses at that stage. He said he received further instructions from his supervisor later.
Asked about the difference between references to a “dental assistant” and an “unlicensed dentist” in his account of events at the scene and the final custody notice, Chan said the additional allegations had been relayed to him by his supervisor.
Chan said he recorded the defendant as having “no fixed address” on the notice because the address she had provided was still awaiting verification by his supervisor.
He also denied that the custody notice and other documents were signed only after the defendant had been interviewed at the Immigration Department office, maintaining that some documents were signed at the scene.
The officer rejected the defense’s claim that he had told the defendant she could call her employer “later” after she made the request at the immigration office on August 17.
He also insisted that the written record had been made voluntarily by the defendant.
Another assistant immigration officer, also surnamed Chan, said she had dealt only with the third defendant during the operation and denied that a colleague had brought the fourth defendant into the interview room.
She said she had issued the detention notice and questioned only the third defendant.
The officer also denied shouting, “Don’t lie because we already know!” at the defendant.
Magistrate Pang Leung-ting raised concerns over whether the intelligence relied upon by the prosecution was sufficient to establish reasonable suspicion.
He noted that officers had not said the three Southeast Asian women seen on the streets of Sham Shui Po were identified suspects, but had instead described them as “passersby, ordinary women.”
Pang also questioned what evidence connected the intelligence to the premises and justified officers entering without a warrant.
Summarizing the defense case, the magistrate said the defendants alleged that officers had entered the premises unlawfully, lacked reasonable suspicion, failed to keep proper records, issued custody notices late and did not provide an interpreter, placing pressure on them to confess.
He noted that the prosecution had responded by saying officers recorded the time the defendants were identified and confirmed that they understood English.
The case was adjourned until Friday, when the magistrate is expected to rule on whether the oral confessions are admissible as evidence.
