Alexandra wrote:Joon wrote:I interpret it as they have more or are looking for more evidence to "weigh" on his "guilt".
Not on catching him in the act, which is the key point to dispute his arrest at his house, outside of legal hours, and in spite of his parliamentary immunity.
If what they have proves a threat to national security, is there any immunity to speak of?
If they have evidence or strong suspicion of a threat to national security, they would still need the National Assembly to lift his parliamentary immunity before they can proceed. Only in the case of
flagrante delicto could they proceed with arrest and then asking for the NA to lift his immunity. Which is why the evidence brought by the police and the Government to justify "caught in the act" is crucial.
On a side note, "national security" has always been interpreted very loosely by Cambodian authorities and they actually almost never explain in what way actions or statements are a threat to national security, besides saying "they are affecting national security."
Alexandra wrote:"Outside legal hours", what time of the day is it OK for the Cambodian police to arrest suspected criminals?
Besides catching an offender in the act, to arrest any suspect of a felony or misdemeanor, police needs an arrest warrant. And by law, the police cannot enter and arrest a person in their private residence between 6pm and 6am. They would have to wait until 6am or take action before 6pm. (Article 199 of the Criminal Procedure Code)