The complainant (COM) had mental problem and was a client of a social service centre. One day, COM entered a classroom of the centre where a lesson was underway but he was not a student of the class. As COM caused trouble and disrupted the class, staff of the centre removed him from the classroom and a dispute arose. COM then dialed ‘999’ to call for assistance from the Police.

In response to COM’s report, Police Constable X (PC X) was deployed to the scene. Later, COM lodged a complaint alleging that PC X failed to show him his police warrant card (‘Neglect of Duty’) and did not allow him to go to the toilet (‘Unnecessary Use of Authority’).

PC X stated that he did show his warrant card to COM upon request, although this was not witnessed by any staff of the centre. Besides, PC X said that during the enquiry, COM requested to go to the toilet but his request was refused by staff of the centre.

After the incident, COM was admitted to the psychiatric ward of a hospital. The doctor in charge of COM’s case said that COM refused to disclose his medical condition and his tentative date of release from the hospital. Besides, COM also declined to be interviewed by the CAPO investigator. Since CAPO did not have access to COM, it was impracticable for it to complete the investigation into COM’s complaint against PC X.

Given COM’s mental condition, Chief Superintendent (Complaints and Internal Investigations Branch) finally approved the curtailment of CAPO’s investigation into the complaint case. The allegations of ‘Neglect of Duty’ and ‘Unnecessary Use of Authority’ were classified as ‘Curtailed’.