No further action on traffic complaint involving member of CPU

A spokesman for the Department of Justice said today (March 15) that no further action is warranted regarding the traffic complaint lodged by a magazine reporter in December 2012 alleging the contravention of traffic laws by a member of the Central Policy Unit, Ms Sophia Kao Ching-chi.

The spokesman said that the complainant, a reporter for a local magazine, provided a photograph when making the complaint. As the reporter filing the complaint declined to make a statement and the senior management of the magazine in question declined to assist, the Police could not obtain any further evidence regarding the authenticity of the photograph or further details about the incident and the circumstances in which the photograph was taken. Accordingly, it is not possible to ascertain the exact circumstances of the incident, nor will there be any witness willing to testify even if the matter is brought before a court. The driver of a coach which was depicted in the photograph and behind Ms Kao's vehicle did not recall anything of significance having taken place. In view of the lack of sufficient evidence, the Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP), Mr Kevin Zervos, SC, after carefully considering the matter according to established legal principles and The Statement of Prosecution Policy and Practice, concluded that no further action was warranted.

In December 2012, a reporter from a local magazine sent a photograph to the Police and complained that Ms Kao was driving dangerously as she crossed continuous double white lines when a coach was behind her vehicle at a very close distance. The photograph showed Ms Kao's vehicle straddling continuous double white lines. It appears to be momentary and it is hard to ascertain the distance of the coach behind the vehicle. After completing an investigation, the Police sought legal advice from the Department of Justice.

The Secretary for Justice, in order to avoid any possible perception of bias or improper influence, after satisfying himself that the DPP had no connection with any person involved in the case, delegated to the DPP the authority to handle the case, including considering whether any prosecution action was warranted.


Ends/Friday, March 15, 2013