The IPCC submitted its 2020/21 work report to the Legislative Council, which included a complaint. An arrested person suspected of "possession of dangerous drugs" was brought back to the police station and was inspected by the police chief in charge of the case. He was wearing trousers to testify, but only a pair of "private partner" shorts was issued to replace.
The son of the arrested man brought a set of clothing to the police station the next day, but the officer only received a coat without explanation.
When the arrested person went to court, he was found not wearing a jacket.
Although the arrested person was released on bail, he was hospitalized on the same day and died of pneumonia two days later.
The complainant questioned the cause of the victim’s death and the fact that the police did not provide sufficient clothing during detention. The police officer’s negligence of duty was “proved to be true”; CAPO also added a new item “Unreported” to the police chief. But the "proved to be true" incident involved failure to provide the same kind of clothing, which is not appropriate.
The IPCC believes that it is necessary for the police to review the measures taken after seizing the necessary clothing of the arrested person.
(Profile picture)
According to a document from the Police Commission, the complainant’s father was found to have dangerous drugs in his trouser pocket. He was arrested on suspicion of "possession of dangerous drugs" and taken back to the police station for investigation.
The case supervisor is a police sergeant who is also a police officer on duty. The police sergeant instructed to seize the trousers of the complainant’s father as evidence and hand over a pair of personal shorts to him for replacement.
A police officer's negligence of duty is "proved to be true"
The complainant brought the same jacket, a shirt and a pair of jeans to the police station the next day. However, a police officer only accepted the jacket without seeking instructions from the police chief. He did not explain why he refused to accept the shirt and jeans.
When the complainant’s father was taken to court for hearing, the complainant found that his father had not put on a jacket. Although his father was later approved by the court to be released on bail, he was unwell and was sent to hospital on the same day. He died of pneumonia two days later.
The complainant believes that the cause of his father’s death may have been due to insufficient clothing provided by the police during his detention at the police station.
The complainant was particularly dissatisfied with the police officer's refusal to pick up clothes without any explanation, and he did not seek instructions from the case supervisor.
Due to the negligence of the police officers involved, they did not first seek instructions from the case supervisor in accordance with the established procedures before deciding whether to accept the complainant's request for additional clothing. Therefore, the allegations were classified as "proven true".
The sheriff was accused of not doing his best to provide similar clothes
The CAPO also added an "unreported but proven" allegation to the police chief, stating that the police chief should consider necessary follow-up arrangements when seizing trousers, such as whether the police can provide similar Replacement clothing; whether it is possible to arrange for relatives of the arrested person to provide them with similar replacement clothing.
If there is no suitable replacement clothing available, is it sufficient to take photos of the trousers without having to seize the trousers?
After seizing the trousers, the sergeant of the police station involved only replaced his shorts with the other party, and did not try his best to provide the other party with similar clothes. This is not appropriate.
The IPCC recommends considering the storage of back-up clothing in police stations
The IPCC believes that the case fully demonstrates the need to formulate specific guidelines to explain the follow-up actions after the arrested person’s necessary clothing is seized.
From the perspective of preventing complaints, it is necessary for the police to review the existing measures and recommend that the police formulate guidelines and procedures, including how police officers should handle the arrested person’s necessary clothing, who should be notified, and who is responsible for deciding the inspection. Take clothes.
The police must also consider what arrangements must be made to provide the arrested persons with suitable and necessary clothing for replacement.
The IPCC also requested the police to consider additional measures to assist frontline police officers in dealing with special situations. For example, the arrested person does not have family or friends to provide clothing for him, or the police seize clothing during non-business hours of clothing shops. The feasibility of storing back-up clothing at the police station to meet emergency needs.
The police accepted the IPCC’s recommendation and will review the current guidelines and procedures and make necessary amendments.
The Police Supervisory Committee will continue to follow up the actions of the police and the implementation of relevant guidelines and procedures after optimization.
The vice chairman of the IPCC, Yi Zhiming, urged the police to step up the prosecution of false complaints. Deng Bingqiang: Will investigate the case where the IPCC officers left the complainant’s information and the taxi was returned by the driver for approval from the Commissioner. The IPCC retorted: Complainant The Police Complaints Office will not find a copy of the restricted access folder for taxis in 6 cases including the complainant’s personal data
01News