 |
| |
Case 6
Misconduct – Unsubstantiated
Neglect of Duty – Substantiated
Neglect of Duty – No Fault
Neglect of Duty – Unsubstantiated |
| |
| 6.59 |
The complainant (COM), a part-time Public Light Bus (PLB) driver, was assaulted by Mr A, the person-in-charge of the PLB Stand. A report was made to the Police and Mr A was arrested for ‘Common Assault’. On a day about one month after the incident, COM gave a statement indicating that he did not wish to pursue the matter. Mr A was then released after a warning was given to him on the same day. |
| |
| 6.60 |
COM raised four allegations against Senior Inspector X (SIP X), the Officer-in-charge of the case, after the release of Mr A. He complained that SIP X attempted to persuade him over the phone to settle the case and SIP X also claimed that he had located ten witnesses who corroborated with Mr A but there were only two witnesses in the end (‘Misconduct’). COM alleged that SIP X inappropriately arranged him and Mr A to stay inside the same interview room on the material day, which made him scared and thus agreed to settle the case (‘Neglect of Duty’). He further alleged that SIP X failed to examine the statements of four to five police officers who were present at the scene (‘Neglect of Duty’). COM also complained that SIP X ignored his repeated requests to provide a further statement during case enquiry (‘Neglect of Duty’). |
| |
| 6.61 |
SIP X denied all the allegations. He explained that he telephoned COM four or five times to clarify the ambiguities in the case. He scheduled an interview with COM at 1530 hours on the material day as COM raised a request just the day before to provide a further statement. SIP X stated that he interviewed two witnesses in the presence of Mr A at 1515 hours. At approximately the same time, COM attended the police station for an interview with him. After seeing Mr A, COM requested to talk with the former privately before giving his statement. SIP X acceded to COM’s request and arranged them to meet in the same room with Mr A’s consent. As SIP X had to leave the interview room for an operational briefing soon after COM, Mr A and his two witnesses got into the room, he explained the situation to them who agreed to continue the talk on their own. SIP X then left the door of the room open and instructed the report room staff to keep an eye on them. Upon his return to the room, COM expressed that he did not want to pursue the case and a further statement was then taken to confirm his stance. |
| |
| 6.62 |
As regards the alleged failure by SIP X to examine the statements of other police officers at the scene, CAPO considered that the case enquiry was properly conducted and it was not necessary to take statements from those officers as they were not present when COM was allegedly assaulted and only attended the scene for enquiry of COM’s report. Hence, CAPO classified this ‘Neglect of Duty’ allegation as ‘No Fault’. In the absence of corroborative evidence to support either COM’s or SIP X’s version, CAPO classified the allegation of ‘Misconduct’ and the remaining two allegations of ‘Neglect of Duty’ as ‘Unsubstantiated’. |
| |
| 6.63 |
Upon examination of the complaint, the IPCC had reservation on the propriety of the interview arrangement made by SIP X. The IPCC made the following observations on the first ‘Neglect of Duty’ allegation and suggested CAPO to re-consider the appropriate classification for this allegation: |
| |
| |
| (a) |
SIP X arranged to interview two witnesses in the presence of Mr A at 1515 hours on the material day, i.e. only 15 minutes prior to his scheduled interview with COM at 1530 hours. SIP X explained that he wanted to obtain the statements from the witnesses on the material day to decide whether to charge Mr A as the latter was due to answer his bail on the following day. However, it did not appear to be a sensible arrangement for SIP X to interview the two witnesses and COM at nearly the same time. It was doubtful that SIP X’s interview with the witnesses could be completed within 15 minutes; and |
| |
| (b) |
No matter whether it was COM’s request to meet Mr A or not, SIP X did actually leave COM (the victim) and Mr A (the arrested person/alleged assailant) and two witnesses alone in the interview room without direct police supervision. Such an arrangement was unprofessional because the arrested person could seize this opportunity to threaten or even hurt the victim during the encounter. |
|
| |
| 6.64 |
In response, CAPO heeded the IPCC’s views and re-classified this ‘Neglect of Duty’ allegation from ‘Unsubstantiated’ to ‘Substantiated’. SIP X was to be advised without an entry in his divisional record file of the need to ensure the security and well-being of potential victims and that alleged assailants and victims were correctly separated while in police premises. |
| |
| 6.65 |
The Council endorsed the revised investigation results of the case. |
| |
 |
|
| 
