Report of the IPCC 2004



Case 17 Neglect of Duty – Unsubstantiated Unnecessary Use of Authority – Unsubstantiated Neglect of Duty – Unsubstantiated

6.159	The complainant (COM) went to a sports ground to play football match in an evening and parked his private car at a nearby public carpark. After the match, COM paid the parking fee of $12 and drove away his car.

6.160	At about 0200 hours on the following day, Detective Sergeant A (DSGT A) took up investigation of a report of ‘Making Off Without Payment’ made by the two carpark attendants of the above-mentioned carpark. In the report, the two attendants were adamant that they had the drive-in record of a private car but not its drive-out and payment records while the car was no longer at the carpark. DSGT A came to know that COM was the registered car owner. As the registered address of COM was not in his district, he requested the police station of COM’s district by telephone to send police officers to visit the address with a view to locating COM for enquiry.

6.161	In response to DSGT A’s request, Police Constables (PCs) B and C arrived at COM’s registered address at about 0420 hours on the same day. The two PCs located COM’s 83-year-old father, who told them that COM was staying elsewhere that night. They were unable to ascertain from COM’s father the whereabouts of COM, his means of contact and the alleged missing vehicle. They left the contact telephone number of DSGT A to COM’s father and left the address.

6.162	In the same morning, having learned from his father that he was wanted by the Police, COM immediately went to see DSGT A with the parking slip which certified that he had made payment of the required parking fee. It was later realized that a carpark attendant had mistakenly given COM the portion of the payment ticket to be kept by the carpark, leading to the report that someone had driven the car off without payment. The case was thus classified as ‘No Crime Disclosed’.

6.163	COM lodged a complaint against the Police two days later alleging that DSGT A failed to conduct detailed investigation before classifying his case as ‘Making Off Without Payment’, which caused nuisance to him (‘Neglect of Duty’); DSGT A abused his authority by sending police officers to his address in the small hours of the morning, which caused nuisance to his parents (‘Unnecessary Use of Authority’); and PCs B and C failed to explain clearly the reason of their visit to COM’s father (‘Neglect of Duty’).

6.164	Upon investigation, CAPO considered that the Police had the duty to look into the report made by the two carpark attendants based on the information provided by them at the material time. CAPO deemed it natural and justified for DSGT A to approach COM who was the registered car owner for clarification, notwithstanding that it was in the early hours of the morning. The Police practice was that whenever a crime was reported to the Police, the Duty Officer of the police station would give the most appropriate initial classification of the case based on the limited information provided by the informant to start off the investigation. Should any evidence subsequently obtained reveal a more serious crime having been committed, the Case Officer would be responsible for reclassifying the case. This explained why the case was initially classified as ‘Making Off Without Payment’. For this reason, CAPO classified the first ‘Neglect of Duty’ allegation as ‘Unsubstantiated’. As regards the allegation of ‘Unnecessary Use of Authority’, DSGT A claimed that at the material time since he opined that the driver of the private car concerned had either driven off without paying the parking fee or the car was stolen, he considered that there was urgency to locate COM for clarification. CAPO accepted DSGT A’s explanation and classified the allegation as ‘Unsubstantiated’. Pertaining to the other ‘Neglect of Duty’ allegation, both PCs B and C denied the allegation. In the absence of independent witnesses and corroborative evidence, this allegation was classified as ‘Unsubstantiated’.

6.165	When the complaint case was first discussed at the Joint IPCC/CAPO Meeting, the IPCC expressed reservation on whether DSGT A’s genuine reason for conducting the nocturnal visit was based on the suspicion that COM’s vehicle might have been stolen. The IPCC opined that if DSGT A really had such a thought in mind, he should have put up an alert for COM’s vehicle to draw it to the attention of the patrolling officers. CAPO was thus asked to confirm whether DSGT A did place COM’s vehicle on the ‘Wanted Vehicle List’. Moreover, the telephone message sent by DSGT A only requested the police officers who visited COM’s home to locate COM to contact the investigating officer in connection with a case of ‘Making Off Without Payment’. The IPCC was of the view that if the Police visited COM’s residence in the small hours for only a minor offence of failure to pay $12 parking fee, it would merit a ‘Substantiated’ classification for the allegation of ‘Unnecessary Use of Authority’. The IPCC also commented that the Police should avoid visiting a person’s residence in the middle of the night unless they had justifiable reasons.

6.166	In response, CAPO confirmed at the subsequent Joint IPCC/CAPO Meeting that there was documentary proof that DSGT A did place COM’s vehicle on the ‘Wanted Vehicle List’ prior to locating COM. This corroborated his claim of having suspicion that the report made by the carpark attendants could be a case of ‘Taking Conveyance Without Authority’, which might be linked to other more serious and urgent crimes. Because of his suspicion, DSGT A considered that there was urgency to locate COM to clarify what had actually happened. For this reason, CAPO maintained that the allegation of ‘Unnecessary Use of Authority’ should be classified as ‘Unsubstantiated’. Nevertheless, CAPO was of the view that DSGT A’s decision of putting COM’s vehicle on the ‘Wanted Vehicle List’ prior to locating COM for clarification was pre-mature. As an outwith matter, DSGT A was advised without an entry in his divisional record file for making such a pre-mature decision. CAPO also heeded the IPCC’s comment that the Police should avoid visiting a person’s residence in the middle of the night unless they had justifiable reasons and would step up its training and education to enhance the awareness of frontline police officers to make sound judgment regarding visits to private homes in the small hours.

6.167	The Council endorsed CAPO’s investigation results of this case.


\| Important notices \| Privacy policy	Last revision date: