SENIOR Inspector Cheung Chiu-ping today may well consider himself to be a lucky man. In the final moments of the hostage drama that cost rogue gunman Cheung Cho-yau and his disabled Korean captive, Kang Sang-bo, their lives, Cheung broke some of the most basic rules, firing indiscriminately and without warning into the back of a taxi. It was good fortune that the driver and a second hostage escaped before the shooting started.
The coroner's jury delivered a verdict of misadventure - a term that attaches no blame to the policeman and suggests Kang was in some way partly responsible for his death. The coroner expressed concern that the jury might have misunderstood the import of the term. Much of the evidence of police colleagues and expert witnesses was highly critical of Cheung's behaviour and there were a number of inconsistencies in his own account. However, the jurors' verdict remains as the official finding.
What emerged most strongly during the inquest was the inadequacy of the instruction officers receive before they are allowed on the streets with their high-powered, standard-issue weapons. They get no formal training in how to cope with hostage-takers, and they receive fewer hours of weapons training than their counterparts in many other jurisdictions. In response to six riders to the verdict which were highly critical of their training and procedures, the police have announced they will conduct a full review. A spokesman said the call for more time to be spent on training would be taken seriously and policies and procedures would be improved wherever possible. However, until the terms of reference of the review are decided, such assurances, however well-intentioned, have to be viewed with caution.
The police have a duty to the public to ensure the review is thorough and far-reaching. A perfunctory examination of procedures would not be good enough. Public safety must no longer be left in the hands of ill-trained officers with little real understanding of the responsibilities that go with the right to carry a weapon. Where lives are at stake, there is no room for complacency or half-measures. In an unfamiliar, sensitive and dangerous situation such as a hostage-taking or a confrontation with an armed fugitive, it is all too easy for a policeman to panic and lose control. Specific training in negotiating with hostage-takers (as the jury recommended) and clear guidelines on when - and when not - to open fire should be urgent priorities. Proper training both in handling weapons and in dealing with frightened, unpredictable gunmen, and their hostages, could have saved the life of Kang Sang-bo. It could save other lives in future.