Case 4
Unnecessary Use of Authority – No Fault
Unnecessary Use of Authority – Unsubstantiated
Unnecessary Use of Authority – Unsubstantiated
Neglect of Duty – Substantiated Other Than Reported
Neglect of Duty – Substantiated Other Than Reported
Neglect of Duty – Substantiated Other Than Reported
Neglect of Duty – Substantiated Other Than Reported
   
7.24
 The complainant (COM) was a salesman of an apparel shop. On the material day, COM had a scuffle with his customer, and in the heat of the dispute, fought with the customer.  A report was made to the Police. After initial enquiry, the Police arrested COM and the customer for the offence of 'Fighting in a Public Place'. Since COM sustained injury in the fight, he was sent to the hospital for medical examination and treatment under the escort of the Arresting Officer, and the customer was brought back to a police station for further enquiry and processing.  As the Arresting Officer would soon go off-duty on the material day, the Duty Officer of the police station concerned (SSGT A) instructed two police constables (PC B and PC C) to attend the hospital with a view to relieving the Arresting Officer of the escort duty.  Before leaving the station for the hospital, SSGT A told PCs B and C to work in pairs, and instructed one of them to draw a pair of Handcuffs Transport Belt (HTB) from the Armoury of the police station as a precautionary measure.  He further reminded one of them (whom he could not recall) that prior to the use of HTB, the officer concerned should call SSGT A to seek prior authorization and make a proper notebook entry regarding its justification, in line with the police force requirement.  (Note: CAPO's investigation revealed that it was PC B who drew the HTB from the Armoury on the material day.)
   
7.25
 Upon arrival at the hospital, PCs B and C took over the escort duty from the Arresting Officer.  COM was then not handcuffed.  In light of COM's status as a suspect/detained person, and there was a likelihood of COM escaping when he needed to move around the public area of the hospital, PC B passed the HTB to PC C who then applied it on COM without seeking prior authorization from SSGT A.  After receiving medical examination and treatment, COM was brought back to the police station for processing, where Detective Police Constable D (DPC D) and Detective Senior Inspector of Police E (DSIP E) were the Investigating Officer and the Officer-in-Charge of the crime case respectively.  After initial processing, COM was released on police bail pending further enquiry.  COM then lodged a complaint with CAPO against the police officers whom he had encountered in the crime case.
   
7.26
 Subsequent to further investigation, DSIP E charged COM and the customer jointly with the offence of 'Fighting in a Public Place'.  As his complaint was closely related to his criminal charge, CAPO treated COM's complaint as 'Sub-judice'. In court, COM raised the same complaint against the police as his defence, but the trial judge convicted him and made no comment on his allegations.  COM subsequently sought and was allowed an appeal of his conviction.  He did not raise the allegations in the appellate court.
   
7.27
 After the completion of court proceedings, CAPO re-opened the investigation of COM's complaint, the details of which were as follows:
   
(a) PCs B and C unnecessarily restrained COM with the HTB when he was in the hospital ('Unnecessary Use of Authority');
   
(b) PCs B and C disallowed COM's requests to make phone calls in the hospital and the police station, and to answer an incoming call in the police station ('Unnecessary Use of Authority'); and
   
(c) DPC D and DSIP E unnecessarily declined the request of COM and his lawyer to give a statement or a record of interview to the Police ('Unnecessary Use of Authority').
   
7.28
 For allegation (a), CAPO considered that as COM had to receive medical treatment including an X-ray examination, and that he had to move around in the public area of the hospital, there was a likelihood of COM escaping at the subject location.  The circumstances therefore necessitated a need for the officers concerned to apply the HTB on COM.  Besides, the relevant police internal order stipulated that a police officer might use wrist restraints (including HTB) to ensure the security and control of a person whom the officer had reason to believe was likely to escape.  Moreover, police procedures stated that whenever a detained person was escorted to a hospital or clinic for medical examination or treatment, he might be restrained by handcuffs or HTB provided that such use was compatible with the relevant police internal order.  In light of the foregoing, CAPO considered the use of HTB on COM by the officers concerned justifiable and appropriate in the circumstances, and hence classified this allegation as 'No Fault'.
   
7.29
 For allegation (b), both PCs B and C denied the allegation.  In the absence of any independent witness or corroborative evidence to support or disprove either side's version, CAPO classified this allegation as 'Unsubstantiated'.
   
7.30
 For allegation (c), DPC D and DSIP E denied the allegation.  DSIP E stated that both COM and his lawyer requested him to take a witness statement from COM in the latter's capacity as a victim of the crime case.  However, as the Police regarded COM as a suspect of the crime case at the material time, DSIP E explained to COM and his lawyer that it would be more appropriate for COM to give a record of interview than a witness statement, which was in line with police guidelines concerning the questioning of suspects and the taking of a statement.  That said, if at any stage of the investigation there was evidence to suggest that COM was indeed a victim rather than a suspect, the Police would invite COM to give a witness statement.  Noting DSIP E's explanation, both COM and his lawyer raised no request, and did not give any statement, nor a record of interview.  CAPO also approached COM's lawyer to assist in the complaint investigation, but to no avail.  In the absence of any independent witness or corroborative evidence to support or disprove either side's version, CAPO classified this allegation as 'Unsubstantiated'.
   
7.31
 CAPO also registered two 'Substantiated Other Than Reported' counts of 'Neglect of Duty' against PC B for (i) failing to seek authorization from SSGT A prior to applying the HTB on COM in the hospital; and (ii) failing to make proper notebook entries regarding the application of HTB on COM.
   
7.32
 After scrutiny of the case, the IPCC had no comment on the classifications for allegations (a) to (c), as well as the two 'Substantiated Other Than Reported' counts of 'Neglect of Duty' against PC B.  However, the IPCC noted that SSGT A had already briefed PCs B and C to perform the escort duty in pairs before they left the police station for the hospital.  In other words, they were acting in concert, and both had the responsibility to ensure that the use of the HTB was properly authorized and documented.  On this basis, the IPCC considered that two additional 'Substantiated Other Than Reported' counts of 'Neglect of Duty' should be registered against PC C as well for (i) failing to seek authorization from SSGT A prior to applying the HTB on COM in the hospital on the material day; and (ii) failing to make proper notebook entries regarding the application of HTB on COM.
   
7.33
 After review, CAPO agreed to register two 'Substantiated Other Than Reported' counts of 'Neglect of Duty' against PC C as suggested.  The IPCC endorsed CAPO's investigation result of this case.
   
Page Top
Copyright | Important notices | Privacy policy Last revision date: