 |
| |
Case 16
Neglect of Duty – Unsubstantiated
Neglect of Duty – Substantiated
Misconduct – Unsubstantiated
Neglect of Duty – Substantiated Other Than Reported |
| |
| 6.147 |
The complaint stemmed from a ‘Traffic Accident Person Injured’ (‘TAPI’) case. In the late evening of the material day, the complainant (COM) was on board her husband’s private car. While queuing up before the traffic lights, a light goods vehicle (LGV) rammed onto the rear part of her husband’s car which was pushed forward to hit on the rear part of a taxi. A total of five persons including COM sustained slight injuries after the accident. |
| |
| 6.148 |
Police’s initial enquiry at the scene revealed that the LGV was unable to stop in time, causing the accident. The LGV was towed to the Police’s vehicle pound for examination. The Motor Vehicle Examiner (MVE) confirmed that the LGV had an effective braking system after the accident. The damaged parts of the LGV, including the fan support bearing, drive belt and pulley, were sent to the Government Chemist for further examination. The Government Chemist revealed that the belt sent for inspection was linked to the vacuum pump, which assisted the driver in putting pressure on the footbrake. Nevertheless, there was no evidence to suggest whether such parts were damaged before or after the accident. The Government Chemist also advised that his examination into the damaged parts was superfluous as the MVE had established after the accident that the LGV had an effective braking system. Upon Police’s investigation, the ‘TAPI’ case was classified as ‘No Further Action’. |
| |
| 6.149 |
After receiving the investigation result of the ‘TAPI’ case, COM lodged a complaint of ‘Neglect of Duty’ against Police Constable A (PC A), Sergeant B (SGT B), Senior Inspector C (SIP C) and Chief Inspector D (CIP D) alleging that they failed to conduct a thorough investigation, resulting in no prosecution being taken against the driver of the LGV. She also lodged a complaint of ‘Misconduct’ against an unidentified police officer suspecting that he knew the senior management of the company of the LGV, resulting in a biased investigation. |
| |
| 6.150 |
Upon investigation, CAPO found that PC A and SGT B had properly taken all initial actions including taking photographs, drawing sketch, making enquiries with the parties involved and detaining the LGV for examination. There was no gross negligence observed from the two officers in their handling of this ‘TAPI’ case. Furthermore, PC A and SGT B were not in a position to decide whether the LGV driver should be summonsed or not. The final decision rested with SIP C, who was the officer-in-charge of the case, and his supervisor CIP D. For this reason, CAPO classified the ‘Neglect of Duty’ allegation against PC A and SGT B as ‘Unsubstantiated’. |
| |
| 6.151 |
As regards the ‘Neglect of Duty’ allegation against SIP C and CIP D, CAPO found that the two officers did fail to handle the ‘TAPI’ case with due care by making proper references to the MVE’s report and the advice given by the Government Chemist in conjunction with the relevant regulations in the Road Traffic Ordinance (Construction and Maintenance of Vehicle) Regulation (Cap. 374 A), or by seeking legal advice for any possibility of proceeding with an offence of ‘Careless Driving’ against the LGV driver. CAPO considered that there was evidence to show that the LGV driver had failed to properly apply the brake of his vehicle in the incident and could have been summonsed for the offence of ‘Careless Driving’. Unfortunately, in a lapse of six months after the traffic accident, the statutory time limit barred the bringing of any prosecution against the offender. CAPO thus classified the allegation of ‘Neglect of Duty’ against SIP C and CIP D as ‘Substantiated’. For the betterment of SIP C, CAPO proposed that he should be advised with an entry in his divisional record file of the need to investigate traffic cases in a thorough and proper manner before a final decision was made in future. As CIP D had retired from the Force, no further action was taken against him. |
| |
| 6.152 |
Regarding the ‘Misconduct’ allegation, it was classified as ‘Unsubstantiated’ in the absence of corroborative evidence. |
| |
| 6.153 |
In examining the complaint case, CAPO found that PC A, SGT B, SIP C and CIP D had failed to comply strictly with the guidelines on performance pledge promulgated by Traffic Branch Headquarters that non-fatal traffic investigations should be completed within three months from the receipt of the report. Because of their delay, all the parties involved in the ‘TAPI’ case were informed of the investigation result one month after the expiry of the performance pledge. In this connection, CAPO registered a ‘Substantiated Other Than Reported’ count of ‘Neglect of Duty’ against the four officers (i.e. PC A, SGT B, SIP C and CIP D). For their betterment, except for CIP D who had retired from the Force, the other three officers were advised without an entry in their divisional record files of the need to comply strictly with the guidelines on performance pledge promulgated by Traffic Branch Headquarters. |
| |
| 6.154 |
The IPCC endorsed CAPO’s investigation results. |
| |
| 6.155 |
After the IPCC’s endorsement, CAPO further reviewed the complaint case and proposed to scale down the disciplinary action against SIP C from ‘Advice with an entry in his divisional record file’ to ‘Advice without an entry in his divisional record file’ regarding COM’s allegation of ‘Neglect of Duty’ against him. CAPO explained that SIP C merely failed to consider thoroughly the reports from the MVE and the Government Chemist and made a wrong decision of ‘No Prosecution’ against the LGV driver. It was a matter of wrong judgment rather than an intentional negligence with malice. |
| |
| 6.156 |
The IPCC fully appreciated that decisions on disciplinary actions against police officers who were substantiated of complaints rested with the Commissioner of Police. However, the IPCC considered it necessary to make observations and recommendations on such actions to ensure equity to the complainees and credibility of the police complaints system. In response to CAPO’s proposal to scale down the disciplinary action against SIP C in this particular case, the IPCC expressed the following views: |
| |
| |
| (a) |
The mistake made by SIP C was obvious and serious. Taking into account the fact that he was an experienced officer who had been posted to the Traffic Division for three years before handling this ‘TAPI’ case, the IPCC did not think ‘Advice with an entry in his division record file’ was inappropriate in the circumstances; and |
| |
| (b) |
SIP C was found substantiated in four other complaint cases since 1999 and in all these cases, he was advised without an entry in his division record file. Taking into account his complaint records which were all concerned with allegations of negligence of duty, it should be considered carefully whether it would serve any meaningful purpose if too lenient follow-up action was taken against SIP C for the present complaint case. |
|
| |
| 6.157 |
After serious consideration of the IPCC’s comments, CAPO agreed that the IPCC’s concerns were valid and reasonable and recommended to proceed with ‘Disciplinary Action’ against SIP C in this case instead in order to properly reflect the gravity of the consequence arising from his negligence of duty. |
| |
| 6.158 |
The Council endorsed the revised follow-up action recommended by CAPO for this case. |
| |
 |
|
| 
