Case 1
Neglect of Duty - Unsubstantiated
Neglect of Duty - Substantiated
Misconduct - Unsubstantiated
Neglect of Duty - Unsubstantiated
Neglect of Duty - Unsubstantiated
Misconduct - Unsubstantiated

   
7.5
 On the material day, the complainant (COM 2), an expatriate, was travelling on board a taxi from Central en route to her residence, whereas Police Constable A (PC A) was on motorcycle patrol duties in the same vicinity.  When PC A's motorcycle reached a road junction in the area, it had a head-to-tail collision with the taxi in which COM 2 was travelling.  PC A fell off his motorcycle and was injured.  In spite of this, PC A called the Police Console to seek assistance.  In response, Sergeant B (SGT B) was deployed to the scene to render assistance and conduct enquiry, followed by other police officers and emergency vehicles.  Shortly after the impact, the taxi driver (Mr X) checked on COM 2 who indicated she was fine at the material time.  Mr X then told COM 2 to take another taxi and leave the scene, because he had to remain to assist the Police in the accident investigation.  COM 2 complied, and the Police did not conduct any enquiry with her there and then.
   
7.6
 Whilst on board another taxi, COM 2 felt her neck and shoulder were painful, and called her fiancé (COM 1) (also an expatriate) informing him of the incident and sought help.   After COM 2 returned to her residence, COM 1 made a 999 call on her behalf to complain about the poor handling of the incident by PC A and SGT B.  The call was received by Police Communications Officer C (PCO C).  Thereafter, COM 1 took COM 2 to a nearby hospital for medical examination and treatment.  Whilst at the hospital, COM 1 alleged that he received a call from Police Constable D (PC D).  He relayed the details of the accident to PC D who then requested COM 1 to provide COM 2's personal particulars to the Police Post at the hospital for further action.  PC D also told COM 1 that he would keep COM 1 posted of COM 2's medical condition.
   
7.7
 Afterwards, COM 2 was invited by the Police to give a statement with a view to assisting in the accident investigation.  Ten days after the accident, COM 2, accompanied by COM 1, attended the police formation concerned to give a statement where they were served by Sergeant E (SGT E).  After the statement taking, COMs 1 and 2 respectively lodged the following complaints to CAPO against the police officers whom they had dealings with throughout the incident:
   
 
(a)
 PC A failed to conduct enquiry with COM 2 at the scene in that he failed to show concern for COM 2's condition, and obtain her personal particulars ('Neglect of Duty');
 
(b)
 SGT B failed to conduct enquiry with COM 2 at the scene in that he failed to show concern for COM 2's condition, and obtain her personal particulars ('Neglect of Duty');
 
(c)
 PCO C displayed a kind of insulting attitude by sniggering, when COM 1 relayed the incident to him over the phone at the material time ('Misconduct');
 
(d)
 PC D failed to keep COM 1 posted of COM 2's medical condition as promised when COM 1 relayed the details of the incident to PC D over the telephone ('Neglect of Duty');
 
(e)
 SGT E refused to provide COM 1 with the personal particulars of PC A and SGT B upon request ('Neglect of Duty'); and 
 
(f)
 SGT E pretended not to know English in front of COM 1 ('Misconduct').
   
7.8
 For allegation (a), PC A denied the allegation.  CAPO's investigation revealed that although PC A was injured at the material time, he had made reasonable efforts to ensure the well-being of the other parties involved in the accident (including COM 2 and Mr X) by asking Mr X to check on COM 2, and called the Police Console for assistance the soonest.  CAPO considered that as an injured party, PC A could neither be expected to carry out his normal constabulary duties nor act as an at-scene investigator.  Notwithstanding this, PC A had done what he could have possibly done in the circumstances, and was not at fault.  CAPO thus classified allegation (a) as 'No Fault'.  As regards allegation (b), CAPO considered that SGT B, being the first-at-scene officer, did not seize the opportunity to make enquiry with COM 2 before she left the scene, and hence was at fault.  Allegation (b) was found to be 'Substantiated'.
   
7.9
 For allegation (c), PCO C denied the allegation.  CAPO reviewed the Console audio tape recordings, and concluded that PCO C had remained earnest and helpful throughout the teleconversation.  PCO C explained that he was not laughing at the time, and that it was merely his natural expression which appeared to be peculiar.  In the absence of corroborative evidence to support or disprove either side's version, allegation (c) was classified as 'Unsubstantiated'.  That said, appropriate advice would be given to PCO C with a view to enhancing his verbal communication skills and professionalism.
   
7.10
 In respect of allegation (d), PC D denied the allegation. CAPO's investigation revealed that PC D was not the Investigating Officer of the traffic accident case, and there was no conceivable reason for PC D to make the promise to COM 1 as alleged.  In the absence of any independent witness or corroborative evidence to support or disprove either side's version, allegation (d) was classified as 'Unsubstantiated'.
   
7.11
 As regards allegation (e), CAPO's investigation revealed that when COM 1 indicated that he would lodge a complaint against the injured police officer (i.e. PC A) and the first-at-scene officer, SGT E was then only certain about the identity of PC A but not that of the first-at-scene officer.  It would therefore be premature and inappropriate for SGT E to disclose the requisite information to COM 1 at that juncture.  Besides, it might also prejudice the interest of his police counterparts.  Moreover, since COM 1 was to lodge a complaint against the officers concerned anyway, it would be more appropriate for SGT E to verify all the information in connection with the complaint before replying to COM 1.  In fact, SGT E had properly registered his complaint and referred it to CAPO for follow-up action.  As such, SGT E's refusal to provide the personal particulars of the officers concerned to COM 1 could not be regarded as negligence.  Allegation (e) was thus classified as 'No Fault'.  For allegation (f), SGT E denied the allegation.  CAPO's investigation confirmed that SGT E had sought the assistance of a police interpreter to facilitate a smooth encounter between him and COM 1 on the material day.  In the absence of corroborative evidence to support or disprove either side's version, CAPO classified the instant allegation as 'Unsubstantiated'.
   
7.12
 After examining the case, the IPCC had reservations over the 'No Fault' classification for allegations (a) and (e) on the following grounds:
   
 
  • In respect of allegation (a), although PC A said that he had checked on the well-being of COM 2 and Mr X, Mr X gave a somewhat different version by saying that he was the one to check on PC A first right after the accident.  Mr X was also unsure if PC A had the chance to check on COM 2 himself.  In his statement, Mr X made no mention that PC A had asked him to check on COM 2 at the material time. Given the different versions of PC A and Mr X, the situation thus boiled down to a one-against-one situation.  In the absence of independent witness or corroborative evidence to support or disprove either side's version, the IPCC suggested CAPO to consider re-classifying allegation (a) as 'Unsubstantiated';
 
  • As regards allegation (e), the crux of COM 1's complaint was SGT E's refusal to provide him with the personal particulars of the injured police officer and the first-at-scene officer.  The IPCC considered that while SGT E might have acted in good faith in this incident, it remained indisputable that there was only one injured police officer, i.e. PC A, and SGT E was aware of the latter's identity at the material time.  Since COM 1's request was specific, it appeared reasonable for SGT E to at least provide the identity of PC A to COM 1 first, to be followed by a more detailed explanation of why the rest of his request could not be complied with.  On this basis, the IPCC suggested CAPO to re-classify allegation (e) as 'Unsubstantiated'.
   
7.13
 After consideration, CAPO subscribed to the views of the IPCC, and agreed to re-classify allegations (a) and (e) as 'Unsubstantiated'.  The IPCC endorsed CAPO's investigation result of this case.
   
Page Top
Copyright | Important notices | Privacy policy Last revision date: