|
|
|
 |
 |
| |
Case 9
Neglect of Duty – Substantiated
Misconduct – Unsubstantiated
Neglect of Duty – Substantiated Other Than Reported |
| |
| 6.81 |
The complainant (COM), a driving instructor, was involved in a traffic accident in which his vehicle (driven by a learner driver, Mr A) collided with another vehicle driven by Ms B. As a settlement could not be reached, COM and Ms B made reports to the Police at 1345 hours and 1832 hours respectively on the material day. At 0100 hours on the following day, two beat officers located COM at his home and arranged a telephone conversation between COM and Police Constable X (PC X), the traffic accident investigator. COM was dissatisfied with the late night visit and lodged a complaint. He alleged that PC X unnecessarily assigned the beat officers to visit him in the small hours, causing nuisance to his wife and neighbours (‘Neglect of Duty’). COM further alleged that PC X told him during their telephone conversation that he would be in trouble if he failed to compensate the opposite party (‘Misconduct’). |
| |
| 6.82 |
PC X explained that he interviewed Ms B regarding the traffic case at 2005 hours on the material day. Since he had no knowledge of COM’s contact telephone number for case enquiry, he obtained COM’s address by conducting a check with the Vehicle And Drivers Licensing Integrated Data (VALID) computer system, which was managed by the Transport Department. At 2155 hours, he sent a telephone message to the report room of Formation A requesting the officers there to locate COM at his residential address. At 2300 hours, he telephoned the report room again to check if his request had been processed. He denied the alleged content of his telephone conversation with COM. |
| |
| 6.83 |
CAPO’s investigation revealed that PC X’s request was not processed immediately as no beat officer was available and it was until 0055 hours on the following day that Police Constable Y (PC Y) of the report room deployed officers to locate COM. CAPO noted that at 0020 hours, PC X also sent a telephone message to Formation B requesting the officers there to locate Mr A but Formation B decided against making a nocturnal visit as there was insufficient justification for doing so. Police records indicated that COM’s report of the traffic case was not transferred to the relevant Police traffic unit for follow-up action until 2346 hours on the following day. |
| |
| 6.84 |
For the ‘Neglect of Duty’ allegation, CAPO considered that PC X’s first request made to locate COM at 2155 hours on the material day was acceptable on the basis that visiting COM was the only means to locate him under the circumstances. However, after knowing that the visit had not yet been arranged when he checked with the report room at 2300 hours, PC X did not give a clear instruction as to whether he still wanted to pursue his request. Although PC X denied having urged Formation A to conduct the visit there and then, his request made to Formation B at 0020 hours indicated that he had asked to locate Mr A even in the small hours. CAPO considered that the late night visit to COM’s home merely for a trivial traffic enquiry was unjustified and classified the allegation as ‘Substantiated’. CAPO noted that PC Y acceded to PC X’s request and deployed two beat officers to pay a late night visit to COM without exercising his common sense to consider whether the urgency or seriousness of the case justified doing so. A ‘Substantiated Other Than Reported’ count of ‘Neglect of Duty’ was registered against PC Y. Both PC X and PC Y were to be advised without an entry in their divisional record files on the need to exercise common sense and consider the urgency and seriousness of each case before arranging a visit to a citizen’s residence in the small hours in future. For the ‘Misconduct’ allegation against PC X, CAPO classified it as ‘Unsubstantiated’ in the absence of corroborative evidence. |
| |
| 6.85 |
CAPO noted that Sergeant Z (SGT Z), the officer who received COM’s report, forgot to transfer COM’s case to the relevant Police traffic unit for investigation immediately. Had COM’s report been transferred promptly, the late night visit could have been avoided. As an outwith matter, SGT Z was to be advised without an entry in his divisional record file on the need to be more diligent and exercise due care in handling similar cases in future. |
| |
| 6.86 |
While endorsing CAPO’s investigation results of this case, the IPCC suggested CAPO to enhance the awareness and professionalism of police officers in conducting night visits by publicizing this case within the Force. Moreover, the IPCC noted that the Police had deployed two beat officers to locate COM at his home address because the contact telephone numbers of drivers were not recorded in the existing version of the VALID system. The IPCC considered that the inclusion of contact telephone numbers in the VALID system would save police resources by reducing the need to locate vehicle owners in person. In response, CAPO agreed to consider publishing the case internally for complaint prevention purpose. CAPO also advised that the Transport Department would replace the old version of the VALID system with an enhanced version in March 2005, which would include drivers’ contact telephone numbers. It was envisaged that the new version would enhance the efficiency of officers handling enquiries of traffic cases. |
| |
 |
|
|
 |
|
| 
