Case 13
Neglect of Duty – Unsubstantiated
Neglect of Duty – Substantiated
Neglect of Duty – Substantiated Other Than Report
   
7.102
 The complainant (COM)'s private car which was parked outside her residence was hit by the car of her neighbour, Ms A.  Two security officers attended the scene to inquire about the accident and took photos of the scene.  Initially, Ms A's husband verbally agreed to compensate COM for the cost of the damage at the scene.  COM picked up a black plastic article (the article) near the offside of her car at the scene.  Coincidentally, COM found that there was a plastic mark at the nearside front corner of Ms A's car and its end matched the article.  COM therefore considered that the article came off Ms A's car as a result of the accident.  COM made a report of the traffic accident to the Police later on the same day when she could not reach an agreement on the compensation with Ms A.
   
7.103
 PC X, a police constable, was assigned as the investigation officer of COM's traffic case.  After investigation, Ms A was summoned for the offence of 'Careless Driving'.  During the trial, COM produced the article in court, and stated that she had shown the article to PC X at the time of making her statement on the traffic case but PC X did not seize it.  COM also disclosed to the Magistrate that her family and Ms A's family had been on bad terms for a long time.  The Magistrate raised doubts about why the article was not seized when COM showed it to the Police on the day she gave her statement.  The Magistrate considered that the prosecution's case would be significantly strengthened if the article was seized at the material time, and further investigation conducted to prove that it was from Ms A's car.  The Magistrate considered it unsafe to convict Ms A by just relying on COM's evidence without other circumstantial evidence, especially with the background of grudges between COM and Ms A.  The Magistrate therefore granted the benefit of a doubt to Ms A and acquitted her of the offence of 'Careless Driving'.
   
7.104
 On noting the court judgment on the traffic case, COM lodged a complaint against PC X for his failure to carry out a proper investigation into the traffic case resulting in Ms A's acquittal.  COM alleged that:
   
 
(a)
 PC X failed to record details of the two security officers in her statement ('Neglect of Duty'); and
 
(b)
 PC X failed to seize the article as an evidence of COM's traffic case ('Neglect of Duty').
   
7.105
 PC X denied failing to record details of the two security officers in COM's statement.  He explained that he had not taken statements from the two security officers since they did not witness the traffic accident at all, and what they heard at the scene was only hearsay evidence.  Regarding the seizure of the article, PC X admitted that during the statement-taking, COM mentioned that she found a plastic article at the scene and believed that it was detached from Ms A's car, but she had not brought the article to the police station at the time of giving her statement.  PC X recalled that COM had contacted him twice to ask for the progress of the case after the statement-taking, but did not mention the article.  PC X stated that he did not further contact COM for the article because he had already asked COM to telephone him once she found the article.  He considered that even without the article, there was sufficient evidence to prosecute Ms A for the offence of 'Careless Driving'.
   
7.106
 Sergeant Y (SGT Y) and Woman Senior Inspector Z (WSIP Z), who were the supervisory officers of PC X, confirmed that they were aware of the issue of the article before deciding to summon Ms A for the offence of 'Careless Driving'.  They took the view that COM might have lost the article as she had not contacted PC X to submit the article, and there was sufficient evidence to prosecute Ms A for the offence since COM had witnessed the traffic accident, and there was photographic evidence of the involved vehicles.  They therefore had not directed PC X to further contact COM to seize the article.  WSIP Z claimed that COM had given another story in court and did not truly reveal that she had never brought the article to PC X on the day of making her statement.  WSIP Z indicated that she would conduct further investigation to establish whether the article would strengthen the prosecution case if she had known that COM and Ms A were on bad terms, but COM had never disclosed such background to the Police.
   
7.107
 After investigation, CAPO found that the two security officers had neither witnessed the traffic accident nor recorded any details of the conversation between the parties at the scene.  COM signed her statement to verify its accuracy without adding anything to it.  COM also admitted that she had informed PC X that she could not provide any witness to the accident.  In view of PC X's denial and there was no corroborative evidence to support COM's version, CAPO classified allegation (a) 'Neglect of Duty' as 'Unsubstantiated'.
   
7.108
 Regarding allegation (b) 'Neglect of Duty', CAPO noted that the statement made by COM in court was contradictory to that given to CAPO as well as the version of PC X.  COM stated in court that she had produced the article to PC X during the statement-taking, but COM's statement taken by CAPO indicated that she had forgotten to bring the article to PC X at the time of statement-taking.  In view of the contradictory versions of COM, and the fact that there was no independent evidence to support either side's version, CAPO classified allegation (b) as 'Unsubstantiated'.  However, in view of the court comments on the Police's handling of the article, CAPO considered that PC X should have taken a more active approach to contact COM for the article, and made a record to this effect rather than waiting for COM to approach the Police on her own initiative.  A verbal advice would be given to PC X to enhance his professional competency.
   
7.109
 Upon examining the investigation result of COM's complaint, the IPCC had reservation about the 'Unsubstantiated' classification for allegation (b) 'Neglect of Duty' based on the following reasons:
   
 
(a)
 Ms A was eventually acquitted of the offence in light of the court comment that COM and Ms A had been on bad terms.  It was clear COM could not serve as an independent witness in the traffic case.  It was necessary for the Police to gather more evidence before laying a charge on Ms A; and
 
(b)
 PC X explained that COM had forgotten to bring the article to him at the time of statement-taking, and COM promised to approach him once she (COM) found it, but COM had never mentioned the article when she contacted PC X afterwards.  However, even accepting that PC X's version was true, it would be more appropriate for PC X to take the initiative to approach COM and make enquiry with her about the whereabouts of the article since it was a valuable evidence in COM's traffic case, and it was incumbent upon PC X, as the investigation officer, to find and collect evidence pertinent to the traffic case.  Therefore, PC X appeared to have neglected his duty in failing to seize the article from COM.
   
7.110
 In response, CAPO agreed with the IPCC's comment on the classification of allegation (b) 'Neglect of Duty' and re-classified this allegation as 'Substantiated'.  Moreover, CAPO considered that SGT Y and WSIP Z had neglected their supervisory duties by failing to direct PC X to investigate the article, and thus a 'Substantiated Other Than Reported' count of 'Neglect of Duty' was registered against SGT Y and WSIP Z.  They were suitably advised by their supervisory officer without an entry in their divisional record files. 
   
7.111
 The IPCC endorsed CAPO's investigation result of the case.
   
Page Top
Copyright | Important notices | Privacy policy Last revision date: