Superiors of two former correctional services officers, who were dismissed after they were charged with substituting urine samples of recovering addicts with their own urine, have denied instructing the officers to fudge the tests on Tuesday. The two former officers testified at their trial that any failure of drug tests by former inmates would be viewed as reflecting poorly on Correctional Services.

Senior Correctional Officers Sin Wai-cheung was the direct superintendent of the two defendants - Tang Kwai-man, 49, and Leung Siu-wing, 54 - who had served that capacity from 2005 to 2010 at Hei Ling Chau Addiction Treatment Centre. Sin said he had never heard any "unofficial instruction" that officers swap their urine samples for these ex-convicts. Sin continued that as the superior of the two former officers, he had never given instructions to the defendants not to record on visitation records that former inmates had failed to find employment.

Correctional services officers are required to conduct monthly visits to the residence or the workplace of ex-convicts for one year after the inmates are released. During the one-year mandatory supervision period, the discharged inmates are required to be recalled to the center if they are found taking drugs or having committed crimes.

The two former guards were found to be swapping urine samples, filling in false information on the visitation reports or missing visits altogether. Both former guards had pleaded guilty in court on August 20, but then disputed details of the prosecution's case.

The defendants said the offenses for which they were charged were common practice and had been directed by the senior officers at the center. The two former employees also said there was an "unwritten rule" about the practice, the purpose of which was to enhance the appearance that the center enjoyed a high success rate with the rehabilitation of former inmates. Once any ex-convicts was recalled after evidence showed him to be taking drugs, or to have committed crimes, the case would be classified as a failure on the part of the center. Sin stressed that he believed he and his colleagues recorded factual information, and would report parolees if they were found to be taking drugs during their supervision period.

The lawyer for the defendants', John Reading, asked Sin if the commissioner of the Correctional Services Department met with some colleagues of the two disgraced officers, who feared they too could be brought up on charges. In response, Sin said he didn't recall, and said the commissioner did meet with officers once in a while and sometimes would attend their quarterly meetings to discuss the department's future development.

Earlier on Monday, Correctional Services Department chief officer of the rehabilitation unit one, Yu Kwok-sun, testified in the case. Yu was asked to explain the reason why the reports of failed rehabilitation rose sharply after the two defendants were arrested.

The court was told that the number of relapses increased to 155 for the first four months of 2010, while 2008 and 2009 saw only 55 and 17 cases.

Yu answered that the increase in the number of relapses stemmed from the fact that the department had expanded drug testing in 2009. He said former inmates were scanned for a greater number of substances due to the increasing types of drugs being taken by ex-inmates. Yu also said the department had never set a rehabilitation target for officers to fulfill.

The hearing will continue on Wednesday.

stushadow@chinadailyhk.com

(HK Edition 08/29/2012 page1)