The Independent Police Complaints Council (IPCC) discussed the investigation report on the “Gun-dropping Incident” with the Complaints Against Police Office (CAPO) and endorsed CAPO's investigation report at the Joint IPCC/CAPO Meeting today.
The complaint stemmed from the incident of police handling of protestors who attempted to approach Mr Donald TSANG, the Chief Executive (CE) of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region during his visit to the trade association of a subsector of the CE Election Committee in his capacity as a candidate in the CE election campaign, which occurred in February 2007. During the scuffle, a pistol fell on the ground and the magazine ejected and several rounds of ammunition came out of the magazine.
Shortly after the incident, the complainant (COM) called CAPO to lodge a complaint alleging an Acting Chief Inspector of the Police VIP Protection Unit (VIP PU) (COMEE 1) who was on duty at the scene on the material day for 'Neglect of Duty'. COM alleged that the muzzle of the dropped pistol had pointed at him and the public at that time. He was scared and therefore complained against COMEE 1 for failing to secure his personal pistol and as a result, it dropped onto the ground.
CAPO completed the investigation on the instant case in mid June 2007, submitted an Investigation Report and the related CAPO file to the IPCC for scrutiny.
CAPO's Investigation Report (June 2007)
COMEE 1 denied the allegation, and stated that he wore his personal 'Glock' semi-automatic pistol (the pistol) strictly in accordance with the VIP PU's internal guidelines. He said he did not know how his pistol dropped onto the ground, but considered that it was just an accident.
CAPO's investigation revealed that the holster and belt worn by COMEE 1 were checked shortly after the incident by officers of the VIP PU, and was confirmed to be in good serviceable condition. Besides, CAPO could neither locate any eyewitness (police or civilian alike including COM himself), nor gather any corroborative evidence to prove when and how COMEE 1's pistol dislodged from the holster and dropped onto the ground on the material day.
CAPO commented that there was no concrete and compelling evidence to suggest that COMEE 1 or any person had deliberately drawn the pistol from the holster during the scuffle and believed that the situation at the material time was chaotic, and believed that COMEE 1 was pushed by other people on his waist during the scuffle.
In conclusion, this incident was a pure accident, and there was insufficient evidence to prove that COMEE 1 was negligent in wearing his pistol. In the absence of independent witness or corroborative evidence to support or disprove COM's claim, this allegation was classified as 'Unsubstantiated'.
IPCC's Observations
Although the IPCC saw no evidence to dispute the conclusion that the incident was an accident, CAPO needed to further examine and account for the parties involved and the factors contributing to the accident. The IPCC raised three rounds of queries with CAPO.
The IPCC considered that even if COMEE 1 was truly pushed by people on the waist during the scuffle, it would not be unreasonable to assume that the force exerted on COMEE 1's waist would come from all directions (as opposed to a straight upward lifting force which seems to be the required direction and force for dislodging the pistol). The IPCC considered that there did not exist a logical cause-and-effect relationship vis--vis CAPO's investigation result of the allegation, in particular the absence of any concrete evidence to prove that someone had intentionally attempted to draw the pistol from COMEE 1's holster during the scuffle, and CAPO's deduction of the possible cause of the incident, i.e. a strong enough external upward lifting force had applied or repeatedly applied on COMEE 1's pistol, causing it to have been accidentally dislodged from the holster. CAPO needed to further examine and account for the parties involved and the factors contributing to the accident.
In response to the IPCC's query, CAPO revealed that there were no specific Force or VIP PU guidelines or procedures governing the actions to be taken by officers in gun dropping situations. Given the occurrence of the instant incident, the IPCC saw it opportune and appropriate for the Force to consider drawing up guidelines to cater for such type of contingency which caused public concern, and requested CAPO to look into the issue and reply in due course. The Council was also concerned if the Formation(s) concerned have conducted a review on the subject matter, and devised further precautionary measures to avoid recurrence of similar incidents in future.
CAPO's Reply and Follow-up
CAPO clarified that the 'straight upward lifting force' was only meant to describe how the pistol dislodged from the holster, rather than the source or direction of the force. There was no concrete evidence to prove that during the scuffle, someone had intentionally pulled the pistol from COMEE 1's holster, and that COMEE 1 (including his waist) was being pushed from around with external forces coming from almost all directions during the chaos. CAPO was of the view that a strong upward push from below the butt of the pistol, or a combination of external forces and COMEE 1's continuous bodily movements at the time, could have led to an upward lifting or pushing force, resulting in the accidental dislodge of the pistol from the holster.
As no concrete and sufficient evidence was unveiled from CAPO's investigation to prove:
- that COMEE 1 had failed to wear his pistol and accessories/equipment according to VIP PU internal guidelines;
- that COMEE 1 and other persons had intentionally drawn COMEE 1's pistol from his holster; and
- the direction and formation of the upward force.
CAPO concluded that the incident was an accident. Besides, in the absence of independent evidence to support COM's version, CAPO considered it appropriate to classify the allegation of “Neglect of Duty” as “Unsubstantiated”.
Arising from the incident, CAPO stated that the VIP PU has conducted a review to identify areas for improvement. Procurement process is underway to replace the existing holster with a latest model. The model under acquisition provides a locking mechanism to engage the pistol trigger guard when the pistol is holstered, and will not let go until the lock has been released. The pistol will continue to be checked by the Senior Force Armourer on a yearly basis, while supervising officers will enhance inspection on the holster and equipment issued to officers under their command.
Discussion in today's Joint IPCC/CAPO Meeting
The IPCC had an in-depth discussion on the investigation result and CAPO's reply.
The IPCC endorsed CAPO's investigation report. In view of public concern caused by the incident, the Council made the following comments and suggestions:
- CAPO revealed that police officers are free to adjust the holster retention to their own optimal level. The IPCC considered that police officers should strike a balance between public safety and operational convenience. The Council suggested the Police to remind frontline officers in this regard.
- The inappropriate arrangements in handling protesters' petition to the Chief Executive were, to a certain extent, attributed to the incident. The Council suggested the Police should make appropriate and reasonable pre-arrangements with the protesters.
CAPO indicated acceptance of the Council's recommendations and undertook follow-up actions.
Other allegations lodged by COM
COM also complained against another police officer (COMEE 2) of “Neglect of Duty”, claiming that he failed to make arrangement for COM and his group to submit petition letters to the CE at the scene as promised.
CAPO's investigations found that the version of COM and COMEE 2 were different. In the absence of independent evidence to support or disprove either side's version, this allegation was classified as 'Unsubstantiated'.
The remaining two allegations of “Unnecessary Use of Authority” and “Misconduct” were categorized by CAPO as “Non-Reportable Complaints” because COM was not an aggrieved party. CAPO will inform COM of the investigation result of these two allegations directly.
Independent Police Complaints Council
20 September 2007
