Judge’s ruling highlights weaknesses in Rickfield case
(CNS): A catalogue of disclosure problems, the potential interference of the attorney general in a criminal case, a finding by one officer that there was no criminal conduct and an inexplicable delay in the progress of the investigation were just some of the issues highlighted in a judge’s ruling relating to the case against the former work-permit board secretary, which was released Friday.
In a ruling responding to an application to throw out the case because of the five-year delay in bringing the case to trial, Justice Charles Quin ruled that it should go ahead but raised questions about the delays, which were blamed on the police and immigration department.
The ruling, which was sealed until the trial ended, was released on Friday just a few days after Tichina Rickfield was acquitted on all counts. It reveals the chain of events that eventually led to the Work Permit Board secretary being charged. During the course of the trial, however, it became apparent that she had been the victim of workplace bullying and was facing criminal charges over seven random unrelated errors in the data inputted into the system from over 15,000 that she was estimated to have made.
In his ruling, made before he had heard the evidence, Justice Quin accepted the crown’s position that the case was a complex one and the various reasons for the delays. However, he noted that the lull in the progress of the investigation between March 2010 and May 2011 was of concern and that the failure of the immigration department and the police to communicate properly added to the problems.
In the chronology recorded by the judge in his ruling, it appears that the first detective had not found any criminal conduct by Rickfield and had recommended that it was dealt with internally. In February 2011, more than a year after Rickfield was placed on required leave, the police officer stated that there was no evidence that she had benefitted from any of the errors and it appeared to be a breach of workplace rules.
However, the next month another detective sought the advice of the director of public prosecutions (DPP) and a letter was also sent to the attorney general and the case was reactivated. In June the AG was again involved in the case, this time in a meeting with immigration staff. During the trial the court heard that this was when the lawyers and immigration staff attempted to shore up the case against Rickfield. However, despite concerns raised by Rickfield’s defence attorney, Fiona Robertson from Samson & McGrath, that the government lawyer should not have been involved in a criminal case, undermining the independence of the DPP, the judge found that the AG was right to discuss the issues with the immigration department.
Following the meeting between the AG’s office and immigration management, more statements were then collected and in November 2011, two years after she was first accused of wrongdoing, Rickfield was interviewed by the police. In the intervening six months the new officer on the case attempted to collect statements from the employers and employees that were affected by the data, which the crown claimed was deliberately altered by Rickfield. However, none of those asked would give statements to the police.
It was not until May 2012 that Rickfield was arrested and charged, and due to numerous delays relating to the packed court docket and other problems with attorneys, it was not until some five years after the allegations were first made that Rickfield found herself in the dock.
The day is coming that the whole government gets gutted in court. The employees just make up stuff as they go along and violate peoples rights ITS sick and I will spend large amounts of my own money to see JUSTICE DONE
I just remembered today that last year when my niece arrived from overseas where she resides, and immigration officer told her at the airport that his computer record showed that she had Cayman status (her mother and grand parents are Caymanians). However, she had never applied for, nor desired, Caymanian status. She had no intention of ever living here.
Her previous visit had been ten years earlier — so she is not even a frequent visitor.
Of course, she did go to immigration and did clear that up. But no one had any idea how she had been granted status: it was likely a data entry error. That happens — human error. But I don’t think anyone lost his or her job over it — and rightly so.
Unfortunately, Ms Richfield paid a huge price for seven errors among 15,000 cases entered onto the system.
Of course she could not explain it — it was human error.
Rather than putting this young lady through the ringer, the department needed to address the conditions that led to the errors: unreasonable workload, deadlines, and total lack of systems to prevent and check for errors.
I am so sorry that this terrible thing has happened to this young woman, but thank God she received some justice, even belatedly.
I hope the department is learning from this and ensuring that it does not happen again.
I’ve become so disillusioned with the bullying, waste of resources and overall injustices that I can’t even find to comment on the plethora of instances where we the takpayers are left to pay for the numerous cases of….well….ineptness, vindictiveness and bullying. What’s so concerning to me (and many others i’ve spoken with) is none of us have any reasonable hope for justice to be brought to bear against those responsible.
I agree with the judge that the AG’s intervention with the Immigration Department was appropriate. As I understand it, the AG is Government’s legal advisor. Judging by the outcome, it seems they should have listened to him.
Similalry, the role of the DPP is to evaluate if there is a case worth taking forward. So when it comes to its attention, it does not necessarily mean that the case will move forward to prosecution in the courts.
I am a little troubled, as well, by the view that the AG would be “interfering” in a criminal prosecution by the DPP. Is the AG not the ultimate boss of the DPP?
We tend to feel, too, that once the case gets into court that if a conviction is not secured that the DPP has “lost”. Again, in our concept of justice, the DPP’s role, even at the time that the case lands in the courts, is to find the truth. That is what we hope will be achieved by bringing out the evidence from both sides. When that’s done well, justice wins.
So the effectiveness of the DPP should not necessarily be judged on cases “won.”
Fact the DPP moves forward with cases they cant win. For over a year I have waited to go to court The case has no merit and was just a malicious case to begin with because I pissed a man off and his friend with whom dropped out of high school made up charges None of the file matches I have gone to 3 local attorneys whom read/reviewed the charges say their is no way this can be so , but its happening and when my current attorney sends letters to the DPP they are ignored. That said When I am vindicated heads will roll I will come after those whom ignored the truth and allowed the suffering for over a year
.Don’t think for a moment I will let god take care of this and let it be.
It is a known fact that when the POLICE recommend that there is no case the DDP takes offense, maybe they should listen more because all they are doing is making both departments look bad an waste money.
What a mess… Clearly, as with many other cases, the DPP simply chose to ignore the complete lack of evidence and went after this poor woman guns a blazing. It matters little to them if there is a reasonable prospect of conviction, or if the case is in the public interest. Though they claim to be doing their jobs, they are in fact doing a complete disservice to every citizen of these islands. Not only are they wasting precious time and valuable resources, their hunting expeditions often end up with the bloodying of innocents. When the facts of the case come to light, as they usually do, and the DPP end up with egg on their faces, not an unusual occurrence, they hide behind the Crown’s skirt like the little boys and girls that they are. Until prosecutors are held to a certain standard of conduct, little will change. Only thing one can hope for is that karma pays them a visit a lot sooner than later.
Mr. V.
It all speaks and points to incompetence. How many would still be holding those well paid positions in any business estabilishment any where? You earn only what you work for, not for your presence.