Secret police probe blocks Tempura report release
Martin Bridger, senior investigating officer for Operation Tempura
(CNS): The Information Commissioner’s Office has been asked to once again re-assess a decision that a controversial report regarding a complaint about the internal police investigation, Operation Tempura, be released to the public. In the latest round in the ongoing legal fight by the governor’s office to keep this document secret, a judge has ruled that, because of claims by the police that the content may impact a current and related police investigation, the ICO needs to take another look.
Tim Owen QC, a UK-based attorney who acted as judge in the hearing on the latest court challenge by the governor’s office, asked Jan Liebaers, the acting commissioner, to reconsider his July 2014 ruling about the secret report.
The document was first ordered to be released by his predecessor, Jennifer Dilbert, well over two years ago. Since then, both Duncan Taylor, the previous governor, and Helen Kilpatrick, the current governor, have used taxpayers’ money to fight the ICO’s orders for the release of the report, which documents a complaint about the RCIPS corruption probe and the reasons why it was not upheld.
In a 52-page ruling released Monday (see below), Justice Owen said the commissioner was wrong not to consider a new factor raised by the governor’s office during last year’s deliberations about the new police investigation. The judge said Liebaers should have taken up the offer by the commissioner of police (CoP) of a closed-door meeting to discuss “the criminal enquiry then underway into the allegations and counter-allegations flowing between Mr Bridger and those about whom he had complained”.
The figure at the centre of the latest Tempura controversy is its one-time senior investigating officer, Martin Bridger, who has alleged criminal conduct on the part of Attorney General Samuel Bulgin, the OT security advisor Larry Covington and the governor at the time of Tempura, Stuart Jack.
Bridger complained to Scotland Yard that the three men knew all about an unlawful entry into a local newspaper’s office but had all denied knowing, leaving him and his investigators to assume that the CoP at the time, Stuart Kernohan and his colleague John Jones had supervised the break-in on a “frolic of their own”.
The RCIPS quickly dismissed the allegations made by Bridger against the UK authorities here, but the mysterious investigation into counter allegations against Bridger, which began more than four months ago, continues.
Bridger has confirmed that he has no idea what the investigation relates to and that has not been asked to assist with the enquiry, nor was he approached by the RCIPS about it during a recent visit to Cayman to deal with a civil suit filed against him by Kernohan.
While Justice Owen has asked the information commissioner to re-consider his order to release the report, he made it clear that none of the other arguments advanced by the governor’s office previously would prevent the release of the document in future, nor would arguments that they chose not to put forward or abandoned in the latest courtroom hearing. He said only completely new developments would be entertained by the court in any future decisions.
Once Liebaers has heard the CoP’s position on the latest investigation, he will make another ruling to either release the document (in full or with relevant redactions) or to delay its release until after the police investigation.
Justice Owen confirmed that he was willing to hear more submissions on the issues and set another mention date for the end of this month.
The judge made no order for costs, but with two government entities engaged in the legal battle, the price tag for both sides, regardless of the outcome, is being covered by the public purse.
This whole fiasco is but a mere demonstration of the extent the UK govt and FCO will go to preserve itself and cover up wrongdoing or criminal conduct by its employees yet it has the audacity to point its finger and instigate the investigation others for corruption!
I seldom agree with John Evans but have to with his last paragraph. Clearly, the Governor’s office has fired all of its ammo and but for this alleged ‘investigation’, would have been rendered naked today.
However, the shocking part is that while the CoP claims to be ‘investigating’, he dismissed Bridger’s allegations without interviewing him and has seemingly now formed a view on the counter-allegations against Bridger without interviewing him either, even though it was public knowledge that he was recently on island.
The only silver lining may be that a ‘file’ has seemingly already been presented to the DPP. With the review of that office which is ongoing, hopefully the matter will not languish there but will be kicked back to the CoP shortly. The concerning matter now is how long will this ‘investigation’ be continued by a CoP who operationally reports to a Governor who doesn’t want it to ever end!
I must commend the Acting IC for his perseverance in the matter. To soldier on as he has while ‘acting’ in the post at the Governor’s pleasure is a testament to his strength of conviction and courage to defend it, not common qualities in the upper echelons of public administration nowadays. I expect that he will take the Judge’s finding against him professionally and respond in a considered way.
It was amusing to see the Judge’s comments in relation to both Doug Schofield and Ian Paget-Brown. XXXXX
Finally, the really positive observation that I must make is with regard to the qualities of the temporary judge, Hon. Acting Justice Owen. He was thorough, tolerant, communicated extremely well and is clearly a very knowledgeable lawyer. Full credit is due to the Judicial & Legal Services Commission, JLSC, for the tremendous enhancements they have made to the recruitment of judges. We’ve come a long way since 2008 when the Governor’s office hired people seemingly on the recommendation of the Chief Justice without little consideration of what we were getting, viz: http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/high-court-judges-subjected-to-best-and-worst-of-verdicts-justices-put-to-test-in-survey-of-barristers-and-solicitors-jason-bennetto-reports-1368329.html
Clearly “Watchin Carefully” (17/3) is not ” Thinkin Carefully.” He begins by agreeing with John Evans’s last paragraph (“Right now the only obstacle in the way of the release of the Aina Report is the CLAIM it might prejudice an on-going investigation.”) Readers will be aware that this news report above is about the “obstacle” in the ruling of Acting Judge Owens. Then Watchin Carefully, AKA Fuzzy Thinkin, goes on to laud Judge Owen in, Fuzzy Thinkin says, a “really positive observation” which turns out to be his “really contradictory observation” in actuality: Justice Owen’ he says, “is thorough, tolerant, communicates well, and is clearly a knowledgable lawyer.” Now, I am sure Justice Owen is all of that, I have no reason to think otherwise, but the “really positive observation” strikes me as contradicting the suggestion that the ruling is substantially based on a “CLAIM” (with its negative connotations) that is an “obstacle” ( again with its negative connotations). Just Sayin….
Of course, the “really positive observation” AKA “really contradictory observation” is really a contrivance — and hardly a veiled one — to bridge to complimenting the JLSC and thereby taking a swipe at the then system of appointing judges — and the Judge at the time — really where he was heading all along — Justice Cresswell. Fuzzy Thinkin leaves us with a link to article critical of Justice Cresswell (along with many other Biritish judges). First, Watchin Carefully (again not ” Thinkin Carefully”) fails to recognize that the link is to a really old article (1994) which has come to be completely falsified by the fact that Justice Cresswell went on to become a highly respected High Court judge, so much so that he was appointed president of the London Commercial Court where he served for many years. It was from that position that he offered himself as a judge of Cayman’s FSD.
As we say in this part of the world, when you throw a stone, the one that squeals is the one that was hit. It would not be the first time, I am sure that Justice Cresswell made a ruling that opened up to the public facts that many may have wanted to keep hidden and that continues to be a prickle in certain parts of the anatomy. Just Sayin.
I have never agreed you Mr Evans but i must say, Now you talking sense This continued fleecing of our money is despicable and outrageous and has been done to protect the criminal few who belong to and are holding up the aspirations of our colonial power. How can we trust those same people when we have paid them good money to tell us the truth and all we get in return is a bunch of lies wrapped up in Red tape.
There are two things that we can take as Fact. 1: the UK will not let tempura info out. 2: Dart will get what ever he wants in the long term which is total unfettered control of our country.
The Establishment always looks after its own. Governors, Judges, Senior Cops are part of the Establishment. Investigators, Ombudsmen, journalists are not.
This document actually reveals a great deal of information that the Governor’s office would probably have preferred to remain secret.
To start off it shows that at this stage they were clutching at proverbial straws to keep the Aina report secret. In fact it’s my opinion that if the ICO hadn’t made a complete mess of the first Judicial Review in October 2013 you wouldn’t now have needed to spend another estimated CI$500K (the first hearing having cost just under CI$500K) on a second hearing. I pulled out of this fiasco after a decision was made by the ICO’s legal team to exclude not only myself but also all the material I had from the UK FOI appeal from the proceedings. At the time I felt (and nothing since has changed that opinion) that in doing so the ICO approach was not only weak but there had been considerable mission creep in that the objective had changed from securing an FOI disclosure to challenging the FOI Law itself. At the time of writing this perverse decision has cost about CI$1million with nothing to show for it.
However, what this latest ruling shows is that Aina’s take on events appears to be in conflict with the official, documented version of some of the events that were the subject of the original Polaine/Bridger complaint. In particular it appears to challenge decisions made by senior members of the Cayman Islands judiciary and possibly support the complaints originally made in 2010 by Martin Polaine.
It also backs up my contention that the way Governor Duncan Taylor conducted the investigation violated the human rights of a number of those involved. Page 11 reports that, “the majority of individuals subject to comment have not been canvassed or made aware of the contents.” That hardly seems like due process to me. In fact it looks like a blatant violation of EVHR Article 6 – the right to fair trial.
But it’s the catalogue of charges allegedly being investigated that are detailed on page 49, and which are now apparently the final obstacle to the release of the documents, that is the most interesting revelation. Apart from what is reported in this story, as of just over 12 months ago the police in the UK were definitely not taking any interest in allegations against Mr Bridger relating to theft of police property or handling and/or possession of stolen property nor was the ICO in the UK looking at any offences under the terms of the Data Protection Act 1998. The complaints relating to these alleged offences were filed in the UK late 2013/early 2014 and were simply ignored. I have copies of emails backing this up. In April 2014 the Metropolitan Police even specifically refused to consider any action to recover documents that, according to Commissioner Baines, represented a clear threat to those named in them.
The suggestion that an individual under investigation over allegations of serious criminal offences could return to the Cayman Islands for a few days then be allowed to fly home without even being interviewed by RCIPS raises more than a few questions about what is really going.
Right now the only obstacle in the way of the release of the Aina report is the claim that it might prejudice an on-going police investigation, which for all intents and purposes is anything but on-going. If anyone asked my opinion I’d say this is nothing more than stonewalling or pure, simple and unadulterated BS.
Sorry, para 4 should have read ECHR not EVHR. Need to get new glasses 🙁