Home | Databases | WorldLII | Search | Feedback Vanuatu Ombudsman's Reports

Improper Delay of Investigating Mrs Margaret Chanel's Complaint by the Police [2005] VUOM 6; 2005.08 (24 November 2005)

REPUBLIC OF VANUATU

OFFICE OF THE OMBUDSMAN

PUBLIC REPORT

ON THE

IMPROPER DELAY
OF INVESTIGATING
MRS. MARGARET CHANEL’S COMPLAINT
BY THE POLICE

24 November 2005

0204/2005/08

PUBLIC REPORT ON THE

ALLEGED IMPROPER DELAY
OF INVESTIGATING
MRS. MARGARET CHANNEL’S COMPLAINT
BY THE POLICE

SUMMARY

This public report is being published in relation to a matter against the Vanuatu Police Force for failure and delay to investigate the case that has been reported to them by Mrs. Margaret Chanel.

It also reveals an output of police investigating system where police tend to ignore to act to minor complaints and especially when the complainant is a female and is not mentally normal.

Mrs. Margaret Chanel, a well known person in Port Vila, reported to the Police that someone had broken into her home and stolen money during Independence celebration on 28 July 2000. This was not investigated by the Police although the case was reported on the same day.

During the Ombudsman investigation it was found that there was an unfair treatment by police in dealing with Mrs. Chanel’s complaint and also that the reason in not dealing with such complaint was not justified and contrary to the police duty to safeguard the security and life of citizens.

The Ombudsman recommends that Police should act on any complaint without discrimination on the grounds of race, place of origin, religious beliefs, political opinions, language or sex. The physical or mental disorder of a complainant should not be an issue when deliberating on their complaint. It is also recommended that Police notifies Mrs. Chanel on the findings of their investigation in this particular case.

The Ombudsman also recommends that sound supervision be exercised by senior staff in order for vigilant outcome of investigation.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

SUMMARY
1. JURISDICTION
2. PURPOSE, SCOPE OF INVESTIGATION AND METHODS USED
3. RELEVANT LAWS, REGULATIONS AND RULES
4. OUTLINE OF EVENTS
5. RESPONSES BY THOSE WITH FINDINGS AGAINST THEM
6. FINDINGS
7. RECOMMENDATIONS
8. INDEX OF APPENDICES

1. JURISDICTION

1.1 The Constitution and the Ombudsman Act allow me to look into the conduct of government, related bodies, and Leaders. This includes the Police Department plus specifically the Criminal Investigation Department (CID) in the Vila Police Headquarters. The Ombudsman can also look into defects in laws or defective administrative practices, including, Police Act (Cap 105) and the Police General Orders.

2. PURPOSE, SCOPE OF INVESTIGATION AND METHODS USED

2.1 The scope of this investigation is to establish the facts about the alleged mistreatment and improper delay of investigating Mrs. Margaret Chanel’s complaint that was reported to the police and to determine whether the conduct of police officers who were tasked for this case were proper or the Police Act (Cap 105) law is defective.

2.2 This Office collects information and documents by informal request, summons, letters, interviews and research.

3. RELEVANT LAWS, REGULATIONS AND RULES

The relevant laws, regulations and rules applied for this mater are mentioned in the Appendix A.

4. OUTLINE OF EVENTS

4.1 On the evening of 27 July 2000, Mrs. Margaret Chanel, a well known person, known to be mentally affected was in town watching the independence celebration activities through to the early hours of the next day.

4.2 At about 2 am in the morning of 28 July 2000, she got back home. On arrival, she noticed that the door to her house was opened. Someone had broken into her house, displaced her belongings and stole her entire earnings which she has been earning by selling peanuts for her livelihood.

4.3 At about 1.00 pm the same day she went to the Police Station and reported the theft. There were three officers on duty at that time namely Constable Dicker Kalmer, Constable Paul Pakoa and Sergeant Willie Ben. When she approached them with her complaint, the trio kept pointing at each other as which of them would take her complaint. Instead of listening and taking her complaints, they started to make jokes among themselves as who should assist her. They did not take her complaint. Seeing what was happening Mrs. Chanel finally went out of the Police Station dissatisfied.

4.4 She reported the matter to Mrs. Boulekone who accompanied her to the Ombudsman Office and lodged a complaint. After briefing on the matter, Mrs. Chanel was then accompanied to the Police Station by an investigator from the Ombudsman Office where they met the Officer-In-Charge of the General Duty, Mr. Seru Taparangi and the above mentioned three police officers.

4.5 On the intervention of the Ombudsman Office and Senior Inspector, Mr. Seru Tapairagi, Mrs. Chanel was asked to make an official statement to the Police on the matter on that day. Refer to a copy of her statement in the appendix B.

Mrs. Chanel confirmed that this was not the first time police officers have treated her in this manner. She stated that there have been a few other times in the past that she was treated in this manner.

Since the matter was initiated by the assistance of the Ombudsman, it was necessary to follow it up closely with the police until it is resolved.

4.6 On 5th September 2000 the Ombudsman wrote to the Commissioner of Police advising him of the attitude of the three police officers. The Ombudsman stressed it clearly that despite her physical appearance, Mrs. Chanel should be respected and be treated like everyone else by police as required by the Constitution. The Ombudsman requested the former Police Commissioner, Mr. Peter Bong, to notify this office of his immediate action in regard to this matter.

4.6 In response to the Ombudsman’s request Mr. Holi Simon, then Acting Commissioner of Police, stated that he was not in a position to provide answers on this matter. He suggested that the Office of the Ombudsman contacts Mr. Seru Taparangi for appropriate action. However, he stated that the Case has been referred to the Criminal Investigation Department (CID) for further investigation. See appendix C.

4.7 On 7 November 2000 the Ombudsman requested police officer, Jack Joses from the CID, to update the office with the status of the case. In response corporal Joses stated that Mrs. Chanel’s case was classed as an "unknown case". See appendix D.

4.8 Upon analyzing Mr. Joses’ comment the Ombudsman request Mr. Joses on 16 July 2001, to give reasons as to why the case was classified as an unknown case and to whether the police had attempted to investigate the case.

4.9 On 19 October 2001, Corporal Joses advised the Ombudsman that the case was not investigated immediately because the force was busy during the independence celebration. He added also that the police was not able to investigate the matter, because of lack of information provided by the complainant and the methods of questioning neighbors and finger prints were no longer practiced by the Police. See appendix E.

4.10 On 22 March 2002, Superintendent George Namaka from the Criminal Investigation Department was asked to confirm the information provided by police officer, Joses. See appendix F.

4.11 In an undated letter to the Ombudsman, Mr. George Namaka clearly stated that the procedure for reporting of theft is that the police investigating officer attends the crime scene, produces photograph and fingers prints or any material that may be left by the suspect. It will also require the officer to question neighbours living in the area for any suspicion of the theft. He added that the case will remain open with police, for another five years until further information is received for further investigation. See appendix G.

5. RESPONSES BY THOSE WITH FINDINGS AGAINST THEM

5.1 Before starting this enquiry, the Ombudsman notified all people complained of and gave them the right to reply. The Ombudsman also sent a working paper to the following individual in order to give them an opportunity to respond and if possible to resolve the matter at this stage. No responses were received from the following people:

- Commissioner of police, Mr. Robert Diniro
- Mr. Seru Tapairangi
- Honorable Joe Natuman, Minister responsible of Police and Prison
- Mr. Paul Pakoa
- Mr. Dick Kalmer
- Mr. Noel Amkorie
- Sergeant Willie Ben

5.2 Responses were only received from Corporal Jack Joses and Superintendent George Namaka.

Both Messrs. Namaka and Joses stated that the Police, in particular the CID section, was not able to investigate the case because of their involvement in a joint operation prior and during the Independence Celebration.

Mr. Joses added that he had received a statement a few days later after the Independence celebration which apparently would not facilitate the investigation progress. He further stated that there was no discrimination against Mrs. Chanel for not carrying out an investigation on her complaint and too that this was not the only case which the police did not attend the scene at the same time. That the case is still open pending additional information that may assist the police further in investigating the complaint. However, he disagreed with the fact that he had not acted on Mrs. Chanel’s complaint. He had acted and handled some of her complaints in the past, one of these complaints did go as far as the court.

Mr. Namaka replied that it was the first time that all sections of the Police Force had joined together in that operation because of lack of man power within the Force. In addition, he stressed that lack of transport, especially for the Criminal Investigation Department (CID), is one of the factors that contributed largely to delays in carrying out investigations. He stated that this has been the situation for almost four years. As a result they cannot attend fieldwork such as searching suspects for interrogation. Since this section is an important section of the Police Force, it should be equipped with the necessary logistic support. Without these, this section of the Police force cannot carry out its duties both efficiently and effectively, therefore cannot respond to citizens’ concerns.

6. FINDINGS

6.1 FINDING 1: UNFAIR TREATMENT ON CIVILIAN MAGRET CHANNEL BY POLICE AT THE GENERAL DUTIES

The Ombudsman has found that Mrs. Chanel has been treated unfairly by the police officers, Corporal Dicker Kalmer, Corporal Paul Pakoa and Sergeant Willie Ben.

The Polices officers present at the police station had each refused to take her complaint.

They made fun of her and did not treat her as they should. Such unprofessional behavior indicates that these officers had breached their professional duties as prescribed by the law and internal regulations within the Force.

6.2 FINDING 2: UNJUSTIFIED REASON FOR NOT INVESTIGATING Miss MAGRET CHANEL’S COMPLAINT.

The reason given for not investigating Mrs. Chanel’s complaint because of the Independence celebration is just an excuse which nobody in the public would accept. There are different sections of the Force responsible for different areas, therefore the crime section should have investigated the complaint.

The other reason for not investigating the complaint was because the three police officers did not bother take her statement when she called in at the police station to lodge her complaint. They did not inform nor explain to her at that time their reasons why they could not assist her. Instead they were disputing among themselves as who should take her complaint. Seeing this, Mrs. Channel left dissatisfied with the three officers’ actions.

6.3 FINDING 3: FAILURE TO INVESTIGATE THE CASE BY CID POLICE OFFICER.

It should be the duty of police officer who was tasked for that case to act on it as required by law.

Failure to visit the crime scene, interview neighbors, take fingerprints is a clear indication of police failure and is a breach of the Police duty, Police Act and Police general orders.

Lack of commitment on the part of the police officers brings discredit on the Criminal Investigation Department (CID) and the Police Force.

In addition, Mrs. Chanel’s right to "protection for the privacy of the home and other property and from unjust deprivation of property" has been denied by the Police. This is a fundamental right accorded by Article 5(1)(j) of the Constitution.

7. RECOMMENDATIONS

The Ombudsman makes the following recommendations based on the above findings to prevent such similar action by police to reoccur in the future.

Recommendation 1: The Ombudsman recommends that Police should deal with complaints received without any form of discrimination

Mrs. Chanel is a disabled person. Her appearance at the Police station showed that she needed assistance. To dispute as who should assist her and take her complaint when she was in need of help is discriminatory and unreasonable.

Recommendation 2: The Ombudsman recommends that Police should complete investigation in this matter and notify Mrs. Margaret Chanel on their written findings.

Recommendation 3: The Ombudsman recommends that the Police Commissioner takes disciplinary actions against the three police officers in accordance with the provisions of the Police Act (Cap 105) and Police Standard rules.

Police officers are appointed to assist all persons when ever they needed their help. The attitude shown to Mrs. Chanel did not demonstrate at all the trust the general public have on the Police Force. Their action has brought disgrace to the Police Force of Vanuatu.

Recommendation 4: The Ombudsman recommends that the Officer in charge of CID and the immediate superior of the case Officer warn the Police officers concerned against such attitude which brings disrepute to the Police Force.

Dated the 24th day of November 2005.

M. Peter K.TAURAKOTO
OMBUDSMAN OF THE REPUBLIC OF VANUATU

8. INDEX OF APPENDICES

A. Relevant laws, regulations and orders.

B. Copy of Mrs. Magret’s Official statement at Police.

C. Response from Mr. Holi Simon.

D. Response letter from Police officer, Jack Joses.

E. Second response from Mr. Jack Joses.

F. Letter to Superintendent George Namaka, from Ombudsman’s Office.

G. Response from Mr. George Namaka.

APPENDIX A

RELEVANT LAWS AND REGULATIONS

3.1 CONSTITUTION OF THE REPUBLIC OF VANUATU

FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS AND DUTIES

Section 5.

The Republic of Vanuatu recognizes, that subject to any restrictions imposed by law on m non citizens, all persons are entitled to the following fundamental rights and freedom of the Individual without discrimination on the grounds of race,......language or sex, but subject to respect for the rights and freedoms of others and the legitimate public interest in defense, safety, public order, welfare and health-

(a) Life,
(c) Security of the persons
(e) Freedom of inhuman treatment
(k) Equal treatment under the law or administration action

Police Act (CAP 105)

Section 4 (2) The Force shall be employed throughout Vanuatu and its territorial waters for-

6. protection of life and property

(d) the prevention and detection of offences and the production of offenders before the court.

Section 7 of the Police Act CAP 105 Provides:

(1) The command and control of any Unit of the Force in any place shall be vested in such member as may be appointed by the Commissioner of Police to be in Charge thereof. Any member so appointed shall be an officer in Charge of Police for the purpose of this Act.

(2) The Officer-In charge of Police shall be subordinated to and carry out the orders of the Commissioner in all matters connected with:

(a) the discharge of the General functions of the Force as provided by section 4.

Criminal Procedure Code:

Section 23:

Every Police Officers may intervene for the purpose of preventing and shall to the best of his ability prevent, a breach of the peace or commission of any cognizable offence.

Order 1 of the Force Standing Order N0.P.1 of the Offence and complaints reported-Action by Police provides:

All officers-In-Charge of Police Stations and Department within the Force, have the Responsibility to ensure that:

(a) All offences and complaints are promptly attended to at the time they are received; and.

(b) That proper supervision is given to ensure the subsequent investigation is thoroughly and speedily completed.