|
|
|
 |
 |
| |
Case 2
Unnecessary Use of Authority – Substantiated
Impoliteness – Unsubstantiated |
| |
| 6.14 |
The complainant (COM) and Police Constable A (PC A), an off-duty auxiliary police officer, had a dispute on board a bus over the ownership of the mobile phone possessed by COM. PC A, who lost a mobile phone on board a bus of the same route, suspected that the mobile phone being used by COM was the one he (PC A) had lost earlier. PC A asked COM to let him examine the phone but his request was rejected. PC A then disclosed his police identity, inspected COM’s phone and made a report to the Police. COM asked PC A to produce his warrant card for inspection but was refused. In response to PC A’s report, three police officers attended the scene for investigation and PC A’s suspicion was subsequently confirmed to be groundless. As PC A did not apologize for his misdeed, COM lodged a complaint against him. COM alleged that after declaring his police identity and flicking his police warrant card in front of him (COM), PC A took away his mobile phone for inspection without offering any explanation (‘Unnecessary Use of Authority’). He further alleged that PC A was impolite to him in the incident (‘Impoliteness’). |
| |
| 6.15 |
PC A stated that at the material time, he found the ring tone, model and colour of COM’s mobile phone being identical to the one he had lost. PC A then checked with his brother at home for the serial number of his lost phone. PC A admitted having revealed his police identity and produced his warrant ward to COM in order to gain the latter’s confidence in letting him examine the phone concerned. After obtaining the phone from COM, PC A examined it and found some numbers inside the phone being identical to those he obtained from his brother. PC A then asked COM whether he had the receipt and the packing of the phone. After learning that COM only had the packing of the phone but not the receipt, PC A suspected that COM was lying and a report was made to the Police. PC A considered that he did not exercise any constabulary power in the incident. He said that COM did not raise any request to inspect his warrant card. He also denied having been impolite to COM and stated that he made apologies to COM but the latter paid no heed to him. |
| |
| 6.16 |
CAPO considered that it was indisputable that PC A’s act was to facilitate conducting an investigation into his lost mobile phone, but PC A’s behaviour reflected his ignorance of the Hong Kong Auxiliary Police Force (HKAPF) Standing Orders which governed his conduct as an auxiliary police officer. His ‘reasonable belief’ that COM had committed an offence only allowed him to make a report to the Police in the capacity of a citizen in accordance with the HKAPF Standing Orders rather than conducting an investigation into it himself while he was off-duty. Moreover, PC A’s declaring his police identity whilst off-duty also contravened the said Standing Orders. CAPO therefore classified the ‘Unnecessary Use of Authority’ allegation as ‘Substantiated’ and disciplinary action was to be taken against PC A. |
| |
| 6.17 |
As PC A denied the ‘Impoliteness’ allegation and there was no independent evidence corroborating PC A’s demeanor throughout the incident, CAPO classified the COM’s accusation of ‘Impoliteness’ allegation as ‘Unsubstantiated’. |
| |
| 6.18 |
The IPCC endorsed CAPO’s investigation results of this case. |
| |
 |
|
|
 |
|
| 
