|
|
|
 |
 |
| |
Case 13
Neglect of Duty – Withdrawn
Neglect of Duty – Substantiated Other Than Reported
Neglect of Duty – Substantiated Other Than Reported
Neglect of Duty – Substantiated Other Than Reported
Neglect of Duty – Substantiated Other Than Reported
Neglect of Duty – Substantiated Other Than Reported
Neglect of Duty – Substantiated Other Than Reported
Neglect of Duty – Substantiated Other Than Reported
Neglect of Duty – Substantiated Other Than Reported
Neglect of Duty – Substantiated Other Than Reported
Neglect of Duty – Substantiated Other Than Reported |
| |
| 6.119 |
The complainant (COM) reported a case of ‘Unregistered Dentist Practising Dentistry (Unregistered Dentist)’ alleging that an unregistered dentist practised dentistry at Flat C on the 3rd floor of a building. COM phoned Police Constable A (PC A) about two months after making the report and learnt that the Police had visited the premises concerned but met with negative result as the dental clinic had already closed down and no arrest was made. COM was dissatisfied and alleged that either PC A did not investigate the case properly or the Police had leaked information about her report (‘Neglect of Duty’). |
| |
| 6.120 |
COM subsequently withdrew her complaint upon knowing that the Police had later arrested the unregistered dentist. Despite COM’s withdrawal, CAPO still conducted a full investigation into the case. |
| |
| 6.121 |
After CAPO’s investigation, a number of irregularities were found on the part of the officers who handled COM’s case. As a result, additional ‘Substantiated Other Than Reported’ counts of ‘Neglect of Duty’ were registered against the officers concerned. The irregularities found were as follows: |
| |
| |
| (a) |
Senior Inspector of Police X (SIP X), Senior Police Constable B (SPC B), Police Constable A (PC A) and Police Constable Z (PC Z) conducted surveillance operations and a physical check as well as made a test call to the clinic concerned on different occasions during the investigation. They, however, did not make notebook entries pertaining to their duties. As a result, ‘Substantiated Other Than Reported’ counts of ‘Neglect of Duty’ were registered against the officers (one count each for SIP X, SPC B and PC Z and three counts for PC A) for their failure to comply with the relevant provision of the Police General Orders (PGO) which stipulated that ‘an officer shall make notes of all matters pertaining to his duty and in particular details of exercise of any power’. |
| |
| (b) |
SIP X was acting Chief Inspector of Police and the person-in-charge of the party conducting the first house search in this case. At the material time, he executed a search warrant which authorized the police to enter Flat C of the building, but the police party actually entered Flat A and later arrested the suspect and his wife for ‘Possession Part One Poison’ and ‘Unregistered Dentist Practising Dentistry’ there. He explained that during the initial enquiry, he was misled by the suspect’s name card and signboard on the outer wall of the building with the address ‘Flat C’ on them indicating that the suspect was physically operating at Flat C. At the time of the raid, he found the suspect inside Flat A and held the belief that the location was Flat C, which was later found to be wrong. CAPO considered that SIP X neglected his duty in that he did not establish the exact location when raiding the clinic. While there was no evidence of ill intention on his part, a ‘Substantiated Other Than Reported’ count of ‘Neglect of Duty’ was registered against SIP X (‘Neglect of Duty’). |
| |
| (c) |
At the completion of the second house search in the investigation, SIP X, being the Officer-in-charge of the house search party, neither instructed any officer nor obtained by himself the signature of the occupants in his notebook to the effect that after the house search, the premises were in order or otherwise. This was in breach of the relevant provision of the Force Procedures Manual (FPM) which stipulated that ‘at the conclusion of a search of premises, whether conducted under a search warrant, authorization or with the occupants’ consent, the Officer-in-charge or an officer nominated by him, should request the owner or occupant to sign the officer’s notebook that the flat is in order or otherwise.’ A ‘Substantiated Other Than Reported’ Count of ‘Neglect of Duty’ was therefore registered against SIP X (‘Neglect of Duty’). |
| |
| (d) |
SIP X, being the Officer-in-charge of the house search party present in the two house searches, did not report to the Duty Officer in the Division concerned at the conclusion of both house searches and record the incident on the Formation Information Communal System (FICS). This was in breach of the Assistant Commissioner of Police (Support)’s written instruction which stipulated that all house searches with or without search warrant must be reported to the Duty Officer in the Division concerned where the search was conducted and recorded in the FICS. A ‘Substantiated Other Than Reported’ count of ‘Neglect of Duty’ was therefore registered against SIP X (‘Neglect of Duty’). |
| |
| (e) |
In the first house search in this case, Sergeant Y (SGT Y) was the exhibit officer who physically seized a number of items of property from the clinic in question. After the house search when the property was seized from the premises, he did not invite the suspect or his wife to acknowledge the seizure of the property by signing an itemized list of the property in his police notebook, but only recorded his action in the FICS. This was in breach of the relevant PGO which stipulated that ‘when property is seized from premises after a search, the Officer-in-charge of the search will ensure that the owner or occupier of the premises, or in his absence another person who is assessed to be able to act on their behalf, acknowledges the seizure of the property by signing an itemized list of property in a police notebook. In circumstances that make the use of a police notebook impractical, the Officer-in-charge may authorize the list to be compiled in an alternative document.’ A ‘Substantiated Other Than Reported’ count of ‘Neglect of Duty’ was registered against SGT Y. |
|
| |
| 6.122 |
For his betterment, SIP X was to be advised without an entry in his divisional record file to be mindful that the execution of a search warrant at a wrong location might cause disturbance to innocent persons and result in an abortive police operation. In addition, SIP X and SGT Y were to be advised without an entry in their divisional record files to observe the relevant PGO and FPM in handling cases of a similar nature in future. |
| |
| 6.123 |
In examining the case, the IPCC noted that there was a two months’ delay between COM’s lodging of her complaint and the first joint operation conducted by the Police with the Dental Council. It appeared that the Police had contributed significantly towards the delay because with the information provided by COM who was the victim of an unregistered dentist, coupled with the initial observation conducted by SPC B and his obtaining verbal confirmation from the Dental Council two days after COM’s report that the suspect was not a registered dentist, the joint operation could have been arranged immediately thereafter. In addition, part of this delay could have been avoided if PC A, the Investigating Officer, had confirmed the unregistered dentist’s status with the Dental Council in writing instead of just making a telephone enquiry which was later considered to be unsafe and the Dental Council had to be approached again for confirmation. Moreover, PC A and SPC B had mounted a series of observations before the raid at the given location with SPC B and PC Z posing as patients. These actions could be done in parallel with the seeking of written confirmation from the Dental Council in order to save time and speed up the investigation. In the IPCC’s view, for cases of this nature, the speed with which they were processed was of paramount importance in the Police’s action to bring the culprit to justice. |
| |
| 6.124 |
In response, CAPO explained that the Police had to complete a series of actions before a strong case for conducting a raid was ascertained. When making her report, COM only provided hearsay information of an ‘Unregistered Dentist’ and it was the duty of the Investigating Officers, PC A and SPC B, to prove or disprove the information given by COM. CAPO considered that during the initial investigation, the actions taken (i.e. conducting ambushes, posing as patients and checking with the Dental Council prior to arranging the joint operation) were the officers’ professional decisions and there was no element of unnecessary delay in handling the investigation. CAPO opined that the time spent for the whole investigation was reasonable and appropriate bearing in mind that the officers had other duty commitments. Notwithstanding this, CAPO undertook to bring to the attention of the District concerned the IPCC’s view regarding the need to act with speed when handling joint operation with the Dental Council. |
| |
| 6.125 |
The Council endorsed CAPO’s investigation results of this case. |
| |
 |
|
|
 |
|
| 
