 |
| |
Case 15
Neglect of Duty – Withdrawn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 |
| |
| 6.138 |
The complainant (COM) was a witness of a case of ‘Wounding’. As the arrested person pleaded not guilty to the charge, the case was scheduled to be heard in court. In order to serve the witness summons to COM to testify in court, Detective Police Constable A (DPC A) contacted COM over the phone on several occasions but still could not make an appointment with COM for serving the summons to him. DPC A claimed that COM showed strong reluctance to attend court in the telephone conversations. When DPC A managed to contact COM again in the evening of the material day, COM told him that the summons could be served to his residence not earlier than 2300 hours in that evening. DPC A then asked his colleague, Woman Detective Police Constable B (WDPC B), who lived in the same district as COM, to serve the summons to COM. |
| |
| 6.139 |
At 0015 hours of the following day, WDPC B phoned COM who was already in his residence and promised to wait for her. WDPC B went off duty at 0030 hours and drove to COM’s residence in her own private car. As it was a new building in an area not familiar to WDPC B, she had to phone COM again at 0200 hours for the latter to indicate her the right route. At 0230 hours, WDPC B finally reached COM’s residence and served the witness summons to him. |
| |
| 6.140 |
Two days later, COM lodged a complaint of ‘Neglect of Duty’ against DPC A alleging that (i) DPC A failed to inform him of his right to choose the location for giving his witness statement; (ii) DPC A had previously made an appointment with him for serving the summons but failed to turn up as agreed; (iii) during a telephone conversation with DPC A on the day before he was served with the summons, when he was dissatisfied that DPC A only informed him to attend court over the phone without serving him the witness summons, he asked for but the officer refused to provide him with CAPO’s telephone number and referred him to the telephone company’s 1083 hotline; and (iv) DPC A should not arrange serving the summons to him at 0230 hours causing nuisance to him. |
| |
| 6.141 |
COM subsequently decided to withdraw his complaint as he did not want to pursue the matter further. As COM withdrew his complaint at his own wish, the allegation of ‘Neglect of Duty’ was classified as ‘Withdrawn’. |
| |
| 6.142 |
In examining COM’s complaint, CAPO noted that as the witness summons for COM was ready to be served three weeks before the trial day, DPC A should have sufficient time to make suitable arrangement, either in person or by way of other alternatives, to serve the summons to COM. The relevant provision of the Police General Orders (PGO) stipulated that “Witness summonses must be served upon the witness personally or be left for him with some person at his last or usual place of abode.” Nevertheless, DPC A did not consider leaving the witness summons at COM’s place of abode. If such action was taken, COM’s complaint might have been avoided. Since DPC A failed to comply with the relevant provision of the PGO, CAPO registered a ‘Substantiated Other Than Reported’ count of ‘Neglect of Duty’ against him. He was advised without an entry in his divisional record file of the need to adhere to the relevant provision of the PGO in future and to give due consideration to the nature of the cases and the possibility of causing nuisance to members of the public before making late night visits. Furthermore, as DPC A did not properly record all his contacts with COM, he was also advised on the importance of making clear and precise records. |
| |
| 6.143 |
Besides, CAPO observed that Detective Sergeant C (DSGT C), the immediate supervisor of DPC A, knew that the latter was having difficulties in serving the witness summons to COM but did not give any proper instructions to DPC A to resolve the matter. Upon CAPO’s enquiry, DSGT C simply stated that he had never thought about what action could be taken if COM refused to take the witness summons. CAPO considered that DSGT C’s performance was below the expected standard. A ‘Substantiated Other Than Reported’ count of ‘Neglect of Duty’ was therefore registered against him. He was advised without an entry in his divisional record file of the need to properly supervise his subordinates and to improve his working attitude in future. |
| |
| 6.144 |
CAPO noted that WDPC B went off duty at 0030 hours on the material day and proceeded to serve the summons to COM. Although no overtime work was claimed by WDPC B, she failed to make an entry in her police notebook regarding the serving of the witness summons to COM. This was in breach of the relevant provision of the PGO, which stipulated that “Any officer shall make notes of all matters pertaining to his duty and in particular details of the exercise of any power, even if by exercising the power there is no offence disclosed”. CAPO thus registered a ‘Substantiated Other Than Reported’ count of ‘Neglect of Duty’ against WDPC B who was advised without an entry in her divisional record file of the need to strictly comply with the relevant provision of the PGO when handling similar incidents in future. |
| |
| 6.145 |
As an outwith matter, CAPO observed that Detective Senior Inspector D (DSIP D), the Officer-in-charge of the case, failed to brief his successor that there was an outstanding witness summons involving an imminent court trial, resulting in the latter not kept aware of the situation and not taking any prompt action to sort out the matter. For his betterment, DSIP D was advised without an entry in his divisional record file to be more thorough when handing over his post to his successor. |
| |
| 6.146 |
The Council endorsed CAPO’s investigation results of the case. |
| |
 |
|
| 
