The complainant (COM) was the defendant in a ‘Theft’ case, in which male A was the victim and male B was the prosecution witness. On the material day, male A was sleeping on a platform outside the Hong Kong Cultural Centre with his pair of shoes left on the ground. Male B saw COM attempting to steal male A’s portaphone but to no avail. COM then stole the shoes and walked away. When male B shouted at COM, he immediately threw away the shoes and ran. Males A and B chased and stopped COM in the vicinity. A report was made to the Police. Eventually, COM was arrested and charged with ‘Theft’. During the trial, COM pleaded guilty and admitted the brief facts of the case. He was convicted and fined. Five months later, he applied for an appeal against conviction but his application was rejected. He then lodged a complaint against Detective Senior Inspector X (DSIP X) alleging that the latter should not believe in the versions of the witnesses and seized the shoes as exhibit (‘Neglect of Duty’). He said that he pleaded guilty to the charge only because he did not want the trial Magistrate to impose a heavier sentence on him if he denied the charge.

DSIP X denied the allegation. He contended that having examined all the evidence available during the crime investigation, he concluded that there was sufficient evidence to lay the charge against COM, who made no complaint throughout the enquiry. After investigation, CAPO found that DSIP X’s decision to charge COM was justified and appropriate, as evidenced by COM’s conviction. In the circumstances, CAPO considered that the allegation was judicially resolved and accordingly classified it as ‘No Fault’.