 |
| |
Case 4
Neglect of Duty – Substantiated
Neglect of Duty – Substantiated Other Than Reported
Misconduct – Substantiated Other Than Reported |
| |
| 6.25 |
The complainant (COM) drove his vehicle which collided with a government vehicle driven by Woman Police Constable A (WPC A) at a roundabout. Woman Sergeant B (WSGT B) was on board the government vehicle at the time of the traffic accident. The two vehicles were slightly damaged at the point of impact and nobody was injured in the accident. COM requested that the case be reported to the Police. |
| |
| 6.26 |
COM claimed that WPC A told him that it was not necessary to report the accident to the Police because she (WPC A) would pay him for the repair cost. COM and WPC A then discussed about compensation and the former asked his wife, who was on board his vehicle at the time of the accident, to prepare a settlement agreement. To ascertain the cost of repairing his vehicle, COM arranged a technician to come to the scene. At the suggestion of WPC A, COM and the former drove their vehicles to a pavement to avoid causing obstruction to the traffic. Inspector C (IP C) and Chief Inspector D (CIP D) arrived at the scene and conversed with WPC A, after which WSGT B told COM that they would report the case to the Police. Shortly afterwards, the technician arrived at the scene. COM subsequently lodged a complaint against WPC A for not reporting the accident to the Police promptly (‘Neglect of Duty’). He alleged that owing to WPC A’s delay in reporting the case to the Police, the circumstantial evidence of the accident was lost as the two vehicles involved were subsequently driven away from the roundabout. |
| |
| 6.27 |
WPC A admitted having conversed with COM during the incident but denied having negotiated with COM about compensation or seen any settlement agreement. She also denied having heard any conversation between COM and WSGT B regarding compensation. WPC A claimed that she was not feeling well after the collision. She therefore took a rest in the government vehicle while WSGT B alighted from the vehicle and conversed with COM. After resting for a while, WPC A alighted from the vehicle, checked its damage and attempted to report the case to the Traffic Formation by using her mobile phone. However, her attempt was in vain because her phone ran out of battery. She told WSGT B accordingly and believed that the latter would make a report for her. In view of the heavy traffic, COM and WPC A drove their vehicles away from the roundabout. After IP C and CIP D arrived at the scene, WSGT B asked WPC A to use her (WSGT B’s) mobile phone to report the case. |
| |
| 6.28 |
WSGT B denied having discussed with COM about compensation. She stated that she made a report to CIP D after the accident. In so doing, she believed that she had followed the traffic accident reporting procedure and CIP D would inform traffic police officers of the accident. Later, when she knew that the accident had not been reported to the Police, WSGT B told WPC A to make a report and informed COM accordingly. She admitted it was her negligence that the accident was not reported to the Regional Command Control Centre (RCCC) promptly after the accident. |
| |
| 6.29 |
After investigation, CAPO considered that there was evidence showing that WPC A had negotiated with COM about compensation at some stages and WSGT B was aware of the negotiation. However, on second thought they dropped their plan to compensate COM. Although COM could not produce any concrete evidence to support his claim that WPC A promised to compensate him, CAPO noted that the technician told the Police that he went to the scene for the purpose of making a quotation for repairs. This corroborated COM’s version. Moreover, the delay of one and a half hours before the case was reported to the RCCC seemed to indicate that COM’s allegation that WPC A promised to compensate him was true. CAPO concluded that WPC A’s and WSGT B’s explanations for the delay in reporting the case were unconvincing and were only attempts to cover up their misdeed. |
| |
| 6.30 |
CAPO’s investigation further revealed that WPC A and WSGT B contravened Police General Orders by (i) failing to draw a sketch and mark the positions of the vehicles before they were moved away from the scene of the accident, (ii) failing to inform the RCCC promptly of the accident and (iii) indicating acceptance of liability for the damage caused to COM’s vehicle by a government vehicle before the accident was reported and investigated. CAPO classified the allegation of ‘Neglect of Duty’ as ‘Substantiated’ and recommended that WPC A and WSGT B be warned without an entry in their divisional record files. |
| |
| 6.31 |
In respect of WPC A’s and WSGT B’s failure to comply with the relevant Police General Orders, the IPCC considered that CAPO should follow the normal practice of dealing with police officers who made similar mistakes by registering additional ‘Substantiated Other Than Reported’ counts of appropriate allegations against WPC A and WSGT B. As WPC A’s and WSGT B’s wilful concealment of their negotiation with COM over compensation was a rather serious misconduct, CAPO was also requested to consider whether giving warnings only to WPC A and WSGT B was commensurate with the gravity of their misdeed. |
| |
| 6.32 |
In reply to the IPCC’s queries, CAPO agreed to register a ‘Substantiated Other Than Reported’ count of ‘Neglect of Duty’ against WPC A and WSGT B for failing to draw a sketch at the scene of the traffic accident and another ‘Substantiated Other Than Reported’ count of ‘Misconduct’ against WPC A for accepting liability for the damage caused by a government vehicle to COM’s vehicle before investigation. Disciplinary actions were to be taken against WPC A and WSGT B. |
| |
| 6.33 |
The IPCC endorsed CAPO’s revised investigation results of this case. |
| |
 |
|
| 
