The IPCC identified two complaint cases in which the complainees did not follow the proper procedures by misusing personal data collected in their course of duty to report the misconduct of the two complainants who were staff of another Government department and a public transport company respectively.  To avoid recurrence of similar incidents, which might bring embarrassment to the Police, the Police was suggested to bring to the attention of all frontline officers the proper procedures to be followed (i.e. by reporting via his chain of command) when lodging a complaint against staff of other Government departments or organizations.  To improve awareness of the issue, the Police was also advised to consider, for example, including the lessons learnt from these two complaint cases in the CAPO Monthly Report or the Complaints Prevention Committee Bulletin.

The Police advised that they would remind officers of the proper way to handle personal data collected during their course of duty by making reference to the two instant cases in the CAPO Monthly Report and/or under the Complaints Prevention Committee Bulletin.

The complainant was the victim of a traffic accident.  After he was informed by a police officer that the investigation of the traffic case had been completed, he made an application for the relevant documents in order to lodge a civil suit against the opposing party of the traffic accident.  Upon receipt of the complainant's application, the supervisor of the General Registry, who was not responsible for investigating the traffic case, wrote to the complainant furnishing him with incorrect information that the investigation into his traffic case was still in progress.  The complainant therefore complained that there was insufficient communication between the police officer and the supervisor of the General Registry.  As a result of IPCC's query, the Police reviewed the relevant work processes.  Additional instruction was given to the General Registry to refer correspondence to the relevant investigation team for action in case the master register did not indicate that the investigation was completed.  To avoid similar complaints, the IPCC also suggested that the Police considered applying the new procedure to other General Registries in the Police Force.

The Police advised that for service enhancement, the new procedure would be considered by other General Registries in the Police Force.

The complainant was required to submit his vehicle registration document and insurance policy to a traffic police officer at an operational base.  The complainant was dissatisfied with the officer's arrangement that he had to wait at the rear gate of the operational base while the officer made photocopies of the said documents.  The complainant considered that the police officer should have arranged for him to wait at the report room.  However, the report room in question was closed down and there were no guidelines on how members of the public should be received after the closure of the report room.  To prevent a recurrence of similar complaints, the IPCC suggested the Police to consider issuing official guidelines so that police officers working at the operational base would know how to receive members of the public.

The Police informed the IPCC that for service enhancement, they had circulated an email message to all officers of the operational base reminding them to make mutually-convenient and acceptable arrangement with members of the public to prevent recurrence of similar complaints.

The complainant reported the loss of her identity card to a MTR Reporting Centre.  The Police advised the complainant to go to a police station to collect her lost identity card, which was found and handed over to the police station concerned, upon conducting a match-check in the computer system.  However, when the complainant subsequently contacted the property office of the police station concerned, she learnt that her identity card had already been sent to the Immigration Department.  She was dissatisfied with the improper handling of her case and lodged a complaint against the officers concerned.  The IPCC considered that if the action taken by the property office, i.e. returning the complainant's identity card to the Immigration Department, had been recorded in the computer system, the Police could have advised the complainant of the action taken, and would not have advised her to go to the police station concerned to collect her identity card.  To enhance the quality of service to the public and avoid similar complaints in future, the IPCC suggested the Police to explore measures to improve the existing procedures in handling similar cases.

The Police advised that they had enhanced the practical application of the property matching function in the computer system, and amended the relevant provisions on 'Found Property' in the Force Procedures Manual.

The complainant lodged a complaint alleging that he was not promptly informed by the Police of the impounding of his motorcycle.  In the course of examining the complaint, the IPCC noted that different regions had different practices of issuing notices to registered owners of impounded vehicles.  The IPCC suggested the Police to look into the possibility of standardizing the practices in this respect and issuing a formal Force-wide instruction so as to give a clear and standardized instruction to all officers regarding when to issue the notice and to avoid possible complaints from different practices adopted in different regions.

The Police advised that they accepted the suggestion of standardizing the procedure of issuing notices to the registered owners of impounded vehicles and would amend the relevant Traffic Procedures Manual in due course.