bodyType

customContents

entityId

entityUuid

articlePageQuery

filter

article

articleBaseAdvertisingInfoArticle

articleListArticle

articleSeoArticle

helpersCheckIsPostiesArticle

hooksArticleAcknowledgementGateOverlayArticle

hooksTrackPageViewArticle

hooksContentInterestArticle

articleLinkingDataContent

articleSchemaContent

liveArticle

advertZone

sentiment

contentLock

topics

types

sections

moreOnThisArticles

urlAlias

commentCount

sponsorType

authorLocations

authors

paywallTypes

corrections

displaySlideShow

multimediaEmbed

printHeadline

seriesContainer

socialHeadline

headline

flag

firstTopic

glossary

flattenTypeIds

publishedDate

additionalInfoBoxes

images

image

relatedLinks

relatedNewsletters

__typename

createdDate

sponsor

factSheets

series

disableOffPlatformContent

published

updatedDate

summary

subHeadline

body

keywords

copyrighted

customTimezone

liveContents

SCMP Reporter

I REFER to the report headlined, 'Officer was not allowed right to silence' (South China Morning Post, February 14), which described a chief inspector's action in taking an uncautioned statement as 'a bungle'.

  This is totally inaccurate.

  The procedure followed by the chief inspector was correct and wholly professional for the recording of a witness statement in a disciplinary matter.

  That this statement was subsequently produced in criminal proceedings can in no way be described as a reflection on him or its original purpose.

  To describe this as a bungle is a slur on this officer's professionalism and a complete misrepresentation of the court proceedings.

  ERIC LOCKEYEAR for Commissioner of Police 



Professional