A police officer who responded to reports of domestic violence three times at the scene but judged that no domestic violence had occurred and returned to the police station lost a lawsuit after appealing a disciplinary action imposed following the victim's death. The court found that the officer was negligent in taking proactive measures to ensure the victim's safety and failed to change the incident code in the 112 system to ‘domestic violence,’ thereby missing the opportunity to take appropriate follow-up actions.
The Supreme Court’s Special Division 1 (Presiding Justice Shin Sook-hee) upheld the lower court’s ruling against police officer A in the appeal case (2024Du33556) seeking to cancel a non-disciplinary warning issued by the Chief of the Gyeonggi Northern Provincial Police Agency.
[Facts]
Officer A, a sergeant at a police substation in Goyang City, Gyeonggi Province, received 14 reports on August 14, 2021, stating “I am having a dispute with my cohabiting partner” and “My cohabiting partner is asking to open the door.” He responded to the scene three times. However, he could not confirm whether the reporter and the cohabiting partner were family members, and judged that there were no special circumstances indicating domestic violence, so he returned to the substation. Officer A also did not complete a risk assessment form, and despite another sergeant entering the call type code in the 112 system as ‘dispute’ rather than ‘domestic violence,’ he did not correct it. Ultimately, the next morning, the reporter was assaulted multiple times in the face by the cohabiting partner who had torn off the window security bars and entered the house, resulting in death. The household had been designated as a ‘high-risk domestic violence recurrence household’ from 2018 to 2020 before being released from that status.
In December 2021, Officer A was disciplined with a reprimand for ‘neglecting duty resulting in the death of the reporter.’ Dissatisfied, Officer A filed an appeal with the Personnel Appeals Committee, which in April 2022 changed the disciplinary action from a reprimand to a non-disciplinary warning. However, Officer A filed a lawsuit seeking to cancel even the non-disciplinary warning.
[First and Second Instance Judgments]
The trial focused on whether Officer A sufficiently understood the dispute between the reporter and the cohabiting partner and whether he neglected his duties. Officer A’s side argued, “At the scene, we confirmed the reporter’s wish for the cohabiting partner to leave and persuaded the cohabiting partner to separate them, doing our best under the circumstances without neglecting duty.”
The first trial court ruled in favor of the plaintiff, ordering the cancellation of the non-disciplinary warning. It reasoned that the failure to complete the risk assessment form or change the 112 system call type code presupposed that Officer A recognized a domestic violence situation, but since the initial scene did not involve a quarrel or dispute between the reporter and the cohabiting partner, it was difficult to conclude that Officer A was aware of such facts. The court also found it very difficult to determine that the failure to complete the risk assessment form and change the 112 system code was a major cause of the reporter’s death due to lack of appropriate follow-up measures.
The appellate court overturned the first trial’s ruling and ruled against the plaintiff. It stated, “Domestic violence is not limited to physical acts of violence, and victims often hesitate to disclose due to fear and anxiety, so one should not rely solely on the victim’s statements. Officer A, after briefly examining only the reporter’s face and arms at the scene and concluding there was no physical violence, failed to actively investigate whether there was physical violence to other body parts or other emotional and verbal abuse, which constitutes neglect of duty or breach of the duty of sincerity.”
[Supreme Court Judgment]
The Supreme Court dismissed Officer A’s appeal, agreeing with the appellate court’s judgment. It stated, “Considering domestic violence-related laws and Police Agency guidelines, when an incident is classified as ‘domestic violence’ at the time of report or when the substance of the report suggests the possibility of domestic violence confirmed at the scene, the responding officer must investigate the victim in a place thoroughly separated from the perpetrator and, except for false or mistaken reports, must in principle complete a ‘domestic violence risk assessment form.’” It further stated, “Officers should not rely solely on the statements of the perpetrator and victim but must comprehensively consider objective scene conditions, witness or bystander statements, and even in cases of simple quarrels or arguments, the incident code in the 112 system should be classified as ‘domestic violence.’”
Moreover, the court ruled, “Officer A was negligent in taking proactive measures to ensure the victim’s safety and by failing to change the incident code to ‘domestic violence,’ deprived both Patrol Team 1, to which Officer A belonged, and Patrol Team 2, which took over the shift, of the opportunity to take appropriate follow-up actions based on the assumption that this was a domestic violence case.”
Hong Yoon-ji, Legal Times Reporter
※This article is based on content supplied by Law Times.
© The Asia Business Daily(www.asiae.co.kr). All rights reserved.
