The senior police officer earlier claimed that after the hearing of the law of record, he was forced to retire from the original order, and after appealing, his sentence was increased to that he was dismissed, and that the procedure was unfair and he was submitted to judicial review. The judge of the High Court today (7th) handed down his judgment on his application, revealing that the police officer had befriended a 15-year-old girl in the name of photography, took photos of her underwear, and then involved money to induce her to take nude photos and have sex. The police officer was not prosecuted but faced a disciplinary hearing and was accused of being a dishonest witness. The judge said that in handling the officer's appeal, the police had reprimanded the police officer for using money to induce the girl to engage in immoral conduct, which was more serious than the exchange of money for sex, and that his conduct did not meet the public's expectations of a police officer. The judge held that it was not improper for the police to impose a heavier penalty after examining the whole case, and refused to grant the police officer permission for review.

The applicant, Chan Kin-man, and the Respondent, Commissioner of Police, Siu Chak-yee.

The applicant, Chan Kin-man, was dissatisfied with the appeal to the Police disciplinary hearing and was sentenced to a heavier sentence and applied to the High Court for judicial review, but the officer refused to grant permission.

The disciplinary hearing found that Chan was not a dishonest witness

According to the judgment, the woman complained to the police in 2016 against Chan, who was not eventually prosecuted but faced a disciplinary hearing. He was charged with three counts of "conduct damaging the reputation of civil servants" in late 2019, alleging that between 3 and 2012, Chan took underwear and nude photos of the female victim, had sexual relations with the female victim, and falsely signed a cheque belonging to the Tuen Mun JPC in 2015 and passed the photo to the female victim. Chan pleaded not guilty to all charges and pleaded guilty to signing a forged cheque and was convicted of sexual activity after a hearing. The woman did not give evidence at the disciplinary hearing, and the members of the hearing considered that Chan was not a good witness and forced him to retire but receive full retirement benefits.

When the police rejected the appeal, they accused Chen of taking advantage of the woman

Chan appealed against the ruling, but the police dismissed his appeal and explained that Chan was undoubtedly an amateur photographer at the time of the incident, and that he had used photographic techniques to weave underage members of the opposite sex and use excuses to find models, but in fact he was looking for opportunities, and that the female victim was only 15 years old when he met Chan. The police also alleged that Chan took advantage of the woman's need for money to induce her to commit immoral acts, and took advantage of her because she was immature and had sexual relations with her.

Chen was dissatisfied with being forced to retire and was dismissed

The Police also alleged that regardless of the relationship between Chan and the female victim, the photo he took of the female victim's underwear did not meet the public's expectations of police officers. The police also considered that the original sentence was too light, and changed the sentence to Chan Su, who was dismissed from his post and lost his retirement benefits.

Dissatisfied with the fact that his sentence was increased on appeal, Chan filed a judicial review of the police's decision to change the sentence, challenging the unfair proceedings of the disciplinary hearing, and claiming that he had no opportunity to cross-examine the woman.

The judge said that the disciplinary hearing only relied on Chan's confession to convict him

In his judgment, the judge said that the disciplinary hearing did not give any weight to the woman's confession and only convicted Chan on the basis of his confession. If Chan considers that the woman's evidence is favourable to him, he can call the woman to give evidence at the hearing, and therefore considers that there is no unfairness in the disciplinary hearing.

Chan also questioned that the police's heavier sentence was unreasonable, but the judge disagreed, and pointed out that the police had the right to change the sentence to other sentences after considering Chan's conduct as a whole, and refused to grant leave for review because Chan had no chance of winning.

Case No.: HCAL2139/2023

Police officer was accused of damaging his reputation and forced to retire Appealed and dismissed Dissatisfied with the police's decision to review the male police officer who identified the picture of having sexual intercourse with a 15-year-old girl Wearing a uniform and touching the woman to love the police Plead guilty to imprisonment 16 months 3 off-duty police officers involved in sexually assaulting the same 15-year-old girl 1 person suspected of having illegal sexual intercourse with the victim last Christmas Off-duty police officers sexually assaulted 6 girls were increased to 5 years Police have a law enforcement role Violation of the law requires a deterrent sentence Off-duty police admit to sexual assault of 6 girls Including standing sexual intercourse with a 13-year-old girl in the park 46 months in prison