|
|
|
 |
 |
| |
| 4.15 |
In 2004, the IPCC made a number of suggestions to improve police procedures. Some of the more significant ones are described below: |
| |
| |
| (a) |
In examining the investigation report of a complaint against a police officer for failing to produce his warrant card upon request, the Police commented that as the complainee was in uniform at the material time and his U.I. number was properly displayed on his shoulder tag, he should be considered as having adequately identified himself as a police officer and thus there was no need for him to produce his warrant card on demand. It was also noted that the Complaints and Internal Investigations Branch of the Police had issued a directive to all CAPO Regional Offices advising them that a police officer in uniform was not obliged to produce Police warrant card on demand by members of the public. However, the IPCC observed that the directive was in fact inconsistent with the judge’s observations in a previous court case that a citizen had the right to demand a police officer on duty, whether in uniform or otherwise, to produce his warrant card for identification. For this reason, the IPCC requested the Police to seek legal advice on the issue.
Acting on the request of the IPCC, the Police sought legal advice from the Department of Justice on whether a police officer in uniform was obliged to show his warrant card on demand by members of the public. The legal advice was that “a warrant card, rather than a uniform, is evidence of an officer’s appointment as a police officer under the Police Force Ordinance, Cap. 232”. Taking account of the legal advice, the Police agreed that uniformed police officers should, in general circumstances, produce their warrant cards upon request by members of the public. In this respect, the relevant chapter of the Police General Orders was amended to reflect the new position of the Police on the issue. |
| |
| (b) |
In examining a complaint arising from a laser gun operation, the IPCC noticed that frontline police officers and the staff of a tunnel operator had different understanding regarding their respective authority of taking traffic enforcement action within the tunnel operation area. It was also revealed during the complaint investigation that the Police had not properly documented its policy regarding taking traffic enforcement action within tunnel operation areas. The Police were requested to look into the matter and consider measures to rectify the situation.
The IPCC was subsequently informed by the Police that they had held a meeting with representatives from the Transport Department and the tunnel operator with a view to clarifying their respective roles in taking traffic enforcement action within the tunnel area. Apart from this, the Police also informed the IPCC that they had issued a set of guidelines on conducting traffic enforcement operations in tunnels to provide all Regional Traffic Formations with guidelines on the matter.
|
| |
| (c) |
The complainant requested a review of his complaint of ‘Neglect of Duty’ and ‘Unnecessary Use of Authority’ and at the same time raised a new allegation of ‘Misconduct’. With the belief that the new complaint might contain fresh information relevant to the review, the CAPO officer responsible for the review case held the review in abeyance until the outcome of the new complaint was available. The new complaint was handled by another CAPO officer. However, owing to a misunderstanding between the responsible officers, the review investigation was only carried out nearly four months after the endorsement of the new complaint. As an improvement procedure, the IPCC requested CAPO to make it a rule that an interim report should be submitted to the Council within six months from the date a review request was received, if the investigation of the review case was still underway, and further interim reports, if applicable, be submitted after each subsequent lapse of six months.
The suggestion was accepted by CAPO and a new provision was introduced in the CAPO Manual to the effect that interim reports on review cases are to be submitted to the IPCC at six-month intervals until the completion of the investigation. |
|
| |
 |
|
|
 |
|
| 
