Court allows casino camera footage as evidence

The Court of Second Instance has ruled against an appeal filed by the suspect in a case which resulted in a sub-chief of the Public Security Police Force (PSP) being punished with 25 days of fine for two instances of unauthorized gambling in a casino.
Considering the evidence provided to be reliable, the Court has ruled against the police sub-chief’s appeal.
On April 19, 2017, the Disciplinary Supervision Commission of the Security Forces received a complaint filed by a local resident, who reported witnessing a PSP officer gambling in a Taipa casino. The PSP officer even disclosed to other gamblers that he was with the Third Policing District of the PSP.
During the investigation, the police obtained surveillance camera footage from the casino. After cross-referencing the faces of people captured by the videos, it was confirmed that the sub-chief had entered the Taipa casino between 1 and 2 p.m. on both April 17 and 19, without approval from his superintendent.
The security force’s supervisory entity found the act to be a violation of the Duty of Obedience in local laws governing the PSP. The director of the PSP therefore imposed a 25-day fine on the sub-chief. The police sub-chief filed an appeal to the Secretary for Security, who denied the appeal.
He then filed a judicial appeal to the middle court. However, the court deemed that the casino providing surveillance footage was consistent with the Personal Data Protection Law, as discipline of civil servants concerns the public interest. The court further explained that the discipline of civil servants is part of public order.
As such, the court ruled against this argument as grounds for appeal.
In addition, the identification process was conducted by two other police officers, whom the court considered more familiar with the face of the suspect and therefore trustworthy.
Based on these facts, the court ruled against the suspect. AL