 |
| |
Case 1
Unnecessary Use of Authority – Substantiated
Impoliteness – Unsubstantiated |
| |
| 6.5 |
In the morning of the material day, in response to a report that there might be electricity leakage from a salon’s signboard which could cause danger to the public, Senior Police Constable A (SPC A) attended the scene and discovered that the signboard concerned posed no immediate danger as it was not connected to any electricity source. Since the salon concerned was not yet open for business, SPC A could not locate the owner of the signboard and left the scene. In the afternoon of the same day, upon receipt of a similar report, SPC A returned to the scene again and made enquiries with complainants (COMs) X and Y, father and daughter, who were the proprietors of the salon concerned. COM Y alleged that SPC A told her that he (SPC A) had cut the electric wire on top of the signboard to avoid leakage of electricity. A dispute ensued when COM Y demanded SPC A to reconnect the wire or compensate her for the broken wire but was ignored. Station Sergeant B (SSGT B), Inspector C (IP C) and Senior Inspector D (SIP D) subsequently attended the scene for enquiry. When COM Y heard SPC A deny having cut the wire to SSGT B, she complained to SSGT B against SPC A for abusing his authority by cutting the electric wire of the signboard (‘Unnecessary Use of Authority’ (‘UUOA’)) and acting in an impolite manner in the incident (‘Impoliteness’). COM X lodged the same complaint as COM Y. |
| |
| 6.6 |
SPC A denied having cut the electric wire of the signboard or told COM Y that he had cut the electric wire. He also denied that he was impolite in the incident. He showed the personal properties on his person to SSGT B, but no sharp object or cutting tool was found. In giving his denial, he made no mention about his report to the Console, for which he had made a record in his police notebook that he (SPC A), together with Mr V, the caretaker of the building where the salon was located, had handled the wire during his visit to the scene in response to the first report. |
| |
| 6.7 |
CAPO’s investigation revealed that Mr Z, an independent witness who worked at a bakery close to COM’s salon, stated that he saw a uniformed police officer cut the electric wire of the signboard concerned in the morning of the material day. The same police officer returned to the scene in the afternoon and conversed with COMs X and Y. CAPO considered that although Mr Z did not know the identity number of the police officer concerned and could not recognize him, there was strong evidence suggesting that the police officer in question was SPC A because SPC A was the only officer who was deployed to the scene twice on that day. |
| |
| 6.8 |
Moreover, Mr U, the informant of the first report about the signboard, stated that after he made the report, a police officer told him over the telephone that he (the police officer) had cut the exposed electric wire. While SPC A admitted having called Mr U, he denied having told the latter that he had severed the electric wire. CAPO found that Mr U’s version corroborated with the first part of Mr Z’s version. |
| |
| 6.9 |
Despite having been warned by SSGT B of the need to tell the truth, SPC A did not disclose to CAPO anything about his report to the Console on the material day concerning the cutting of the electric wire at the subsequent complaint investigation until he was confronted with the record of the audio-tapes of the Console. When being asked to explain about the content of his report to the Console, SPC A stated that he could not recall why he had made such a report to the Console. CAPO approached Mr V who stated that he did not assist SPC A to cut the electric wire and he had no idea why SPC A made such a report to the Console. |
| |
| 6.10 |
In view of the above findings, CAPO considered that there was substantial independent evidence disproving SPC A’s denial of having cut the electric wire of the signboard. As such, the ‘UUOA’ allegation was classified as ‘Substantiated’ against SPC A. |
| |
| 6.11 |
Regarding the allegation of ‘Impoliteness’, Mr Z told CAPO that a police officer conversed with COMs at the scene and he (the police officer) was not friendly throughout the incident. CAPO strongly believed that the police officer mentioned by Mr Z was SPC A. However, Mr Z could not explain further how unfriendly the police officer was. As there was no substantive corroborative evidence supporting COMs’ allegation, the ‘Impoliteness’ allegation was classified as ‘Unsubstantiated’. |
| |
| 6.12 |
Upon examination of the complaint, the IPCC commented that the findings of CAPO’s investigation indicated plainly that SPC A did cut the electric wire as alleged by COMs. It was equally evident that SPC A lied to his senior officers at the scene and to CAPO by flatly denying to have done so. The IPCC raised concern about SPC A’s misconduct and enquired whether any action would be taken against the officer in this aspect. In response, CAPO advised that according to the Police Legal Adviser, there was sufficient evidence to lay a disciplinary charge of ‘UUOA’ against SPC A. Following the conviction of this charge, consideration would be given to discipline SPC A for obstructing the disciplinary investigation and telling lies. |
| |
| 6.13 |
The IPCC endorsed CAPO’s investigation results of this case. |
| |
 |
|
| 
