Table of Contents IPCC Website *
Fair Just Open
Chapter 6 - Cases of Interest
Reason for Reporting Individual Cases
Selection of Cases for Reporting
Anonymity
Case Summaries
Case 1 Case 2
Case 3 Case 4
Case 5 Case 6
Case 7 Case 8
Case 9 Case 10
Case 11 Case 12
Case 13 Case 14
Case 15 Case 16
Case 17 Case 18
Print
*
Case Summaries
 
Case 11
Unnecessary Use of Authority – Substantiated
Neglect of Duty – Unsubstantiated
Unnecessary Use of Authority – Substantiated
Rudeness – Unsubstantiated
Neglect of Duty – Substantiated
Neglect of Duty – Substantiated Other Than Reported
 
6.96 The complainant (COM)’s son made a loss report of his ‘ETC’ card to the bank in early January 2003 when his bank account relating to the card was frozen by the bank until a new card was issued. A few days later, COM’s son was informed by the Police that his bank account had been fraudulently used in a ‘Deception’ case. His son agreed to attend a police station to assist in the investigation. However, COM, his wife and his son were arrested by officers of Police Station X when they went to the bank to enquire about the bank account in question. They were later handcuffed and escorted to Police Station Y. COM eventually lodged the following complaints:
 
 
(a) Detective Police Constable A (DPC A) abused his authority in making a decision to arrest him and his wife (‘Unnecessary Use of Authority’);
 
(b) Station Sergeant B (SSGT B) and Station Sergeant C (SSGT C) of Police Station X failed to entertain his request to see a lawyer (‘Neglect of Duty’);
 
(c) The escorting officer Police Constable E (PC E) should not have used handcuff transport belt on him in the course of escorting him to Police Station Y (‘Unnecessary Use of Authority’);
 
(d) An unidentified uniformed officer addressed him as a prisoner during his detention in Police Station X (‘Rudeness’); and
 
(e) DPC A of Police Station Y failed to explain to him the reason of his arrest and release (‘Neglect of Duty’).
 
6.97 On allegation (a), CAPO’s investigation revealed that DPC A was the case officer of the ‘Deception’ case whereas Sergeant Z (SGT Z) was the Officer-in-charge of the police party called to the bank. When informed by SGT Z that COM was at the bank, DPC A sought his supervisor’s instruction but omitted to mention the presence of the suspect’s parents (COM and COM’s wife). His supervisor was therefore not aware of the presence of COM and COM’s wife and did not give specific instruction regarding how to handle them. The arrest of COM and COM’s wife was partly attributed to this communication problem.
 
6.98 CAPO conducted investigation to ascertain who should be held responsible for giving the instruction to arrest COM and his family. It was revealed that as SGT Z failed to contact the case officers at the bank, he invited COM and his family to go to Police Station X. Upon arrival at the police station, SGT Z met DPC A who told him (SGT Z) that the OC case was not available then. In the absence of the OC case, SGT Z arrested the suspect, COM and his wife, as advised by DPC A. CAPO considered that it was possible that SGT Z, not having knowledge of the background of the case, had arrested the persons accompanying COM’s son through a misunderstanding though DPC A did not specifically named such persons in his instruction to arrest. Having considered the evidence available, CAPO tended to believe that it was DPC A who gave instruction to take the arresting action and allegation (a) was found ‘Substantiated’ against him.
 
6.99 On allegation (c), CAPO revealed that PC E was authorized by Sergeant D (SGT D) to use handcuff transport belt on COM having considered that COM was emotional and it was a long escort journey between Police Stations X and Y. CAPO considered the arrangement acceptable as COM was a prisoner at the material time. The allegation was classified as ‘Unsubstantiated’.
 
6.100 On allegation (e), CAPO considered that the arrest of COM and his wife was unnecessary. DPC A, however, stated that the decision to arrest was made by the uniformed officers called to the bank. As DPC A was believed to be the one who gave the instruction for the arrest action and he could not satisfactorily explain the arrest action, he was found ‘Substantiated’ for the allegation.
 
6.101 On allegations (b) and (d), SSGT B, SSGT C and all the officers present in the report room of Police Station X denied the allegations. In the absence of corroborative evidence, CAPO concluded that the allegations should be classified as ‘Unsubstantiated’.
 
6.102 In examining the case, the IPCC had reservation on the classification of allegation (c) which was related to the use of handcuff transport belt on COM. Considering that the arrest of COM was unlawful and that COM had shown no sign of violence, the IPCC held the view that it was not justified to apply handcuff transport belt on him. Most importantly, the use of handcuff transport belt did not meet the criteria laid down in the relevant Police General Orders. While the police officers present said that COM was emotional at the time, it did not necessarily mean that he would become violent and cause injury to himself or the escorting officers to require the use of handcuff transport belt. Besides, the investigation revealed that COM’s party had all along been cooperative with the Police. For the above reasons, the IPCC considered that allegation (c) should more appropriately be classified as ‘Substantiated’ instead of ‘Unsubstantiated’ and that SGT D, who authorized the use of handcuff transport belt, should be held responsible for the allegation.
 
6.103 The IPCC also observed that SGT D and PC E failed to record in their notebooks regarding the use of transport handcuff belt, for which a ‘Substantiated Other Than Reported’ count of ‘Neglect of Duty’ should be registered against them. Similarly, a ‘Substantiated Other Than Reported’ count of ‘Neglect of Duty’ should also be registered against Woman Police Constable F (WPC F) for her failure to make a notebook entry on the use of handcuff on COM’s wife.
 
6.104 In response, CAPO agreed that SGT D, who authorized the use of handcuff transport belt on COM, should be held responsible for the unjustified course of action and be ‘Substantiated’ for allegation (c) ‘Unnecessary Use of Authority’. PC E, who had acted on the instruction of SGT D, should not be held responsible for the improper use of handcuff transport belt.
 
6.105 CAPO also agreed to the IPCC’s recommendation to register a ‘Substantiated Other Than Reported’ count of ‘Neglect of Duty’ against SGT D, PC E and WPC F for their failure to comply with the relevant Police General Orders to record in their notebooks the justification for the use of wrist restraints on COM, his wife and his son.
 
6.106 The Council endorsed CAPO’s revised investigation results of this case.
 
*
 
*
Copyright | Important notices | Privacy policy Last revision date:
*
*