Police slammed for FOI response … again
A review by the Cayman Islands Information Commissioner’s Office has revealed what Commissioner Jennifer Dilbert called “very serious record-keeping issues” within the Royal Cayman Islands Police Service.
“There seems to be total confusion as to what files exist, do not exist, cannot be found, or have not yet been found,” Mrs. Dilbert wrote in her 13-page ruling on a case that involved a former police officer who made requests for certain information under Cayman’s open records law.
“It appears that, over the last few years, some improvements have been made in the way complaint files are logged,” Commissioner Dilbert wrote. “However, given the manner in which this request and appeal were handled by the RCIPS, I can only conclude that the vital importance of record-keeping is insufficiently understood and acted upon within the [police] service.
“It appears that not all RCIPS officers, particularly in [the] Professional Standards Unit, are cognisant of the requirements of the FOI Law. Proper records management is essential to the operational functions and success of the RCIPS in dealing with its crime-fighting responsibilities.”
The review by the information commissioner was done following an initial request for information that sought two complaints made to police, one from 2004; ‘other files’ investigated and completed by the department up through March 2010; performance assessments between 2005 and 2008; a copy of an application made before appearing in front of the police sergeants’ promotion board; and a copy of the former officer’s contract.
The Caymanian Compass contacted the police service for a response to the information commissioner’s report Wednesday. Nothing had been received by press time.
“Incomprehensible”
One of the reasons the RCIPS gave for refusing to release all records to the former officer is that there were two investigations remaining open against the officer.
Police said the investigations were suspended “and will resume should the applicant rejoin the service”.
The former officer summed up the police position this way: “In layman’s terms, ‘I dare you to return to the service’.”
Commissioner Dilbert didn’t follow the logic: “It is incomprehensible to me why the RCIPS would wish to keep files
– some of which are already over five years old –
open or pending, in the seemingly unlikely event that the applicant might rejoin the service at some unspecified time in the future.
“The notion that the progression of a potential criminal matter would have to wait until that officer rejoins the RCIPS is absurd, as this would mean that a police officer who commits an offence would have to do no more than resign from the RCIPS to gain immunity from prosecution.”
Mrs. Dilbert also questioned, aside from the criminal matter, how the police planned to take disciplinary action against an employee who had already left the service.
Delays
According to Mrs. Dilbert, the police provided some of the information requested by the former officer in early February. The rest of the information was withheld, but the police failed to provide any reasons for why they refused to release the records; a violation of the FOI Law, the information commissioner ruled.
After months of bureaucratic delays, an internal review done by the department’s acting chief officer released a bundle of records to the former officer. However, this batch of records actually contained less information than the first group of records provided.
“At the time of the initial decision, the RCIPS released 12 complaint files to the applicant [the former officer], while withholding the other, unspecified records,” Mrs. Dilbert wrote. “At the time of the internal review decision, only eight of these 12 files were again released.
There is no satisfactory explanation for the illogical and inconsistent course of action.”
In July, the information commissioner’s office issued a notice of hearing on the matter to consider whether the records that had been withheld should be released. Police failed to meet deadlines to release records that would be considered by the information commissioner’s office in its hearing. The RCIPS eventually produced those by 11 October, Mrs. Dilbert said.
“I continue to have concern regarding [the records’] completeness,” the commissioner wrote. She said nine of the 13 police files that were relevant to the request for information were not included in what the RCIPS presented to her office.
After considering arguments from both sides, the information commissioner ruled all available records requested by the former officer should be released. She said most of the positions taken by the police in favour of withholding the records were “totally lacking in substance”.
“It should be clear from the long list of serious procedural breaches and the inadequate and almost nonsensical reasoning of the RCIPS in respect of the exemptions claimed, that the RCIPS has indeed breached [the former officer’s] right to obtain access [to] the responsive records,” Mrs. Dilbert wrote.
In conclusion, the information commissioner ruled the police service does not have sufficient resources or procedures in place in relation to how it keeps its records. Mrs. Dilbert also noted the police service does not, in her view, have adequate resources to support its information manager.
Related Videos
Nothing new here.
The RCIPS responded to an FOI request that I filed stating that some of the requested records, minutes from a Stategic Oversight Group meeting, did not exist.
When pressed Commissioner Baines claimed that the records did exist but had been held on a laptop from which the hard disc had been removed. He promised to try to find out what had happened to it and send me a copy.
In the meantime an FOI request to the Metropolitan Police Service turned up records of another meeting. These discussions had preceded the SOG meeting and the minutes should have been released by the RCIPS in response to my FOI original request. In the event the RCIPS never officially admitted that these records existed or that the meeting had taken place despite being required to do so by the FOI Law.
Eventually, an abstract of the requested minutes was produced but it didn’t actually show what discussions had taken place and it couldn’t be positively identified as a true record of what was said at the meeting.
It’s also interesting that the treatment of this request shows double standards when it comes to processing complaints about police officers. I filed serious complaints against two members of the Operation Tempura team. After a year, the RCIPS dismissed the complaints on the basis that no action could be taken because those concerned had left the RCIPS and the Cayman Islands. This decision was later upheld by the current Governor, Duncan Taylor.
In contrast complaints against the former officer featured above have not been dismissed but appear to have been placed on indefinite hold based on the odd logic that he might return to the RCIPS.
A while back the RCIPS were described in court as being like the ‘Keystone Kops’. I think that was very unkind – to the Keystones.
We’d like to use John’s comment to remind readers of the following story, published in June.
http://www.compasscayman.com/caycompass/2011/06/30/FOI-office-warns–police-of-contempt/
The Compass also made private complaints to the ICO in January which detailed concerns – in part – that the RCIPS Information Manager wasn’t being given adequate support or resources to do his job. Interesting to find that – 11 months later – Mrs. Dilbert is having the same concerns.
Nothing new here at all and typical of many similar organisations in this and other jurisdictions.
The RCIPS keeps bringing in key staff from more progressive countries and the local officers treat them as nothing more than a temporary inconvenience who should be ignored or, at best, only lip service paid. Then when these key staff leave or are replaced, they simply revert back to their original ways.
FOI law is widely understood in countries such as the UK and there are, in most cases, robust systems for the management of records and policies that dictate what should and should not be revealed.
In the case of complaints details, if the complaint is not going to be proceeded with – and in the case of an officer who has left the organisation, there surely can be a decision made that this person will NOT be re hired, the retention of these papers is no longer needed. If there was a possibility of the officer being re hired than they records would not have to be released as to do so would be detrimental to law and order.
BTW: There is one are where I don’t understand the FOI Commissioners comments: A police officer facing criminal charges can still face those charges after they have resigned. It would be normal practice in the UK for a person to be barred from resigning or retiring while such charges are being investigated or considered. The only cases that would cease on retirement / resignation would be disciplinary matters (i.e.: not criminal) where the power to act ceases once the person leaves the service.