THE admission by detectives that they detained a man they believed to be innocent in connection with the Tuen Mun rape inquiry is deeply disturbing. It raises questions over the kind of pressures police face in high-profile cases and, much more worrying, it raises questions over their ability to handle such pressures.
In any society with a free media, serial violent criminals will tend to generate a lot of publicity, creating fear in the community and putting pressure on the authorities to capture the criminal. Failure to do so may deepen public scepticism about the general performance of the police, undermining confidence in their efficiency and threatening the prestige of the police force. Operating under this harsh spotlight of publicity, individual officers may be tempted to cut corners to obtain results.
In the case of the Tuen Mun rapist, the pressures on the police were, doubtless, extreme, if not unprecedented. When one of the victims identified a local electrician and decorator as her attacker, it is not difficult to imagine the mixture of elation and relief the police must have felt. At the same time, detectives must have been aware of the limits of uncorroborated identification evidence, and the fact a chief inspector admits having detained the man while believing in his innocence is mind-boggling.
It is desirable that politicians and pundits should exercise self-restraint when pressuring the police to obtain results, but it is essential police should act responsibly when facing such pressure, and that the Legal Department ensures charges are properly brought. Detaining the wrong man in the Tuen Mun case had three results: first, it meant an innocent man was deprived of his freedom; second, it meant the public were off their guard when they might have been in danger; third, it meant the police might have loosen up a bit and allowed the real criminal, Lam Kwok-wai, to continue his murderous spree.
