|
|
|
 |
 |
| |
Case 10
Neglect of Duty – Unsubstantiated
Unnecessary Use of Authority – Substantiated
Offensive Language – Unsubstantiated
Unnecessary Use of Authority – Substantiated
Neglect of Duty – Substantiated Other Than Reported |
| |
| 6.87 |
The complainant (COM) was arrested for a ‘Theft’ case reported by his business partner in late 2002 for pocketing decoration fees collected from the tenants of the premises at a housing estate. Since then, he had been put on police bail until he was released seven months later. Before completion of the investigation, COM lodged the following complaints: |
| |
| |
| (a) |
Detective Police Constable A (DPC A), the investigating officer of his case, failed to explain to him the reason for extending his bail when he reported back to the police station every two to three weeks (‘Neglect of Duty’); |
| |
| (b) |
DPC A and Detective Senior Inspector B (DSIP B) kept him waiting for about one hour after he had reported on time to the police station for bail procedures on two or three occasions (‘Unnecessary Use of Authority’); |
| |
| (c) |
DSIP B used abusive language, although not directly at him, to comment on his case on the first occasion he reported for bail after his arrest (‘Offensive Language’); and |
| |
| (d) |
DSIP B extended his bail unjustifiably when he refused to settle the money matter with his business partner (‘Unnecessary Use of Authority’). |
|
| |
| 6.88 |
For allegation (a), DPC A maintained that he had told COM the purpose of extending his bail when he personally interviewed COM on each occasion. Without any corroborative evidence, CAPO classified this allegation as ‘Unsubstantiated’. |
| |
| 6.89 |
For allegation (b), CAPO found that COM was kept waiting for more than three hours on two out of the six occasions he attended the police station for bail procedures. On the remaining four occasions, COM was released on bail in less than an hour which, in CAPO’s opinion, was not unnecessarily long in view of the processing and documentation work involved. Of the two occasions on which COM was kept waiting for more than three hours, the first occasion involved DPC A who explained that as he was busily engaged in dealing with three other different crime cases at the material time, he had to leave COM waiting before he finished handling such cases. As he had told COM to return to the station in two hours as he would need some time to prepare for COM’s interview, it was COM’s own choice to leave or remain in the station during the two-hour period. CAPO considered that DPC A had not deliberately or negligently caused undue delay to COM and hence classified allegation (b) against DPC A as ‘Unsubstantiated’. On the second occasion, CAPO noted that DPC A had informed DSIP B of his engagement with other cases and asked the latter to deal with COM. As DSIP B failed to do so, he was found ‘Substantiated’ for allegation (b). |
| |
| 6.90 |
For allegation (c), DSIP B denied having used offensive language to comment on COM’s case on the day when COM first answered his bail. His denial was corroborated by DPC A. In the absence of any supportive evidence, CAPO classified the allegation of ‘Offensive Language’ as ‘Unsubstantiated’. |
| |
| 6.91 |
For allegation (d), COM alleged that DSIP B unjustifiably extended his bail when he could not reach a settlement with his business partner. CAPO’s investigation revealed that there was nothing to suggest that DSIP B, being the OC case, failed to investigate the case promptly and efficiently. However, it was incumbent upon DSIP B to take reasonable steps in arranging the extensions of COM’s bail to ensure that the inconvenience caused to the latter was kept to the minimum. It was noted that the duration of most of COM’s extended bail periods was for just two to three weeks, which was not commensurate with the complexity of the inquiry and this had resulted in the need for COM to return frequently for bail extension. CAPO concluded that judging from the circumstantial evidence, allegation (d) should be classified as ‘Substantiated’. |
| |
| 6.92 |
CAPO’s investigation also revealed that DSIP B’s supervisor, Chief Inspector C (CIP C), should be held responsible for failing to examine fully the necessity and justification for each bail extension before giving his approval. A ‘Substantiated Other Than Reported’ count of ‘Neglect of Duty’ was registered against CIP C. On scrutiny of the bail records, CAPO also found that CIP C failed to maintain a proper record of COM’s bail extensions, except for the first four occasions, in the Force’s computer system. As an outwith matter, he was to be advised, without an entry in his divisional record file, to avoid similar recurrence in future. |
| |
| 6.93 |
After examining CAPO’s explanation, the IPCC agreed with the classifications recommended by CAPO for allegations (a), (c) and (d) as well as the ‘Substantiated Other Than Reported’ count of ‘Neglect of Duty’ registered against CIP C. Regarding allegation (b), the IPCC observed that DPC A did not make a proper notebook entry regarding his duties in his encounter with COM. The fact that he had taken a statement from COM some time later on the material day was not an evidence to prove that he did request COM to come back for statement-taking in two hours. Besides, the IPCC considered that a scheduled appointment should be adhered to from the angle of service quality and suitable alternative arrangements should be made if the original appointed time could not be met. DPC A’s delay in conducting the interview with COM for two hours showed that he did not care about the latter’s feeling or the inconvenience caused to him. Moreover, the fact that COM was kept waiting for about an hour on each of the four other occasions indicated that COMEE habitually and persistently ignored the scheduled time of appointment. In view of the above observations, the IPCC suggested to CAPO that the unnecessary delays by DPC A in handling COM’s bail should more appropriately be classified as ‘Substantiated’. |
| |
| 6.94 |
In response, CAPO agreed to the IPCC’s suggestion to revise the ‘Unsubstantiated’ finding for allegation (b) to ‘Substantiated’. |
| |
| 6.95 |
The Council endorsed CAPO’s revised investigation result of this case. |
| |
 |
|
|
 |
|
| 
