 |
| |
Case 18
Indecent Assault – False |
| |
| 6.168 |
The complainant (COM) was arrested for ‘Shop Theft’ inside a pet shop. She was subsequently charged with the offence and released on bail pending the case to be tried in court. Several days later, COM lodged a complaint of ‘Indecent Assault’ alleging that after her arrest, an unidentified male officer squeezed her right breast two to three times when she was taken to the Temporary Holding Area (THA) of the police station for detention. COM was then conveyed to hospital for examination with the medical finding of ‘no obvious external injury found’. Afterwards, COM said that she was very tired and left without giving a statement to clarify the details of her allegation to the Police. |
| |
| 6.169 |
When COM was located in a hospital on the following day, she was observed to have drug overdose and not yet fully regained her consciousness. COM’s mother disclosed that COM had habitual drug abuse by taking cough medicine and sleeping pills. Six days later, when COM was interviewed by the Police in the hospital after the medical officer confirmed that she was suitable to give a statement, she expressed her decision to withdraw her complaint without giving any explanation. |
| |
| 6.170 |
Upon investigation, COM’s allegation was found unequivocally refuted by the Detained Person Movement Record as COM was already detained in the THA at the time when the indecent assault allegedly occurred. There was also inconsistency in the versions given by her regarding the area (right or left breast) she was indecently assaulted. CAPO commented that without prejudice, COM’s repeated abnormal behavioural pattern gave rise to grave concern about her mental condition at the time when enquiries were made with her after her arrest and when she lodged her complaint of ‘Indecent Assault’. COM appeared to have behaved irrationally, exemplified by her prior self-incriminating warning given to the keeper of the pet shop that she was going to steal things in the shop. In addition, when being enquired about the ‘Shop Theft’ case after her arrest, COM told the officers that ‘she did not steal things in the pet shop; it was she who created the dog clothes and collar by magic.’ |
| |
| 6.171 |
Given COM’s psychiatric report which revealed that she had drug-induced psychosis and dissocial personality disorder as well as a history of drug abuse, it was believed that she might have delusion at the time when she lodged the complaint which was proved to be unfounded and groundless. Despite COM’s withdrawal of her complaint, the allegation of ‘Indecent Assault’ was classified as ‘False’ and the alleged complainee remained unidentified. As there was no indication to suggest that COM had knowingly misled the Police by providing inaccurate information, no prosecution or warning action was taken against her. |
| |
| 6.172 |
The IPCC endorsed the investigation result of this case. |
| |
 |
|
| 
