Judicial review request seeks information
Although it never made it to criminal court, a case involving allegations that a high-ranking Royal Cayman Islands Police Service officer assaulted a junior officer could potentially end up in civil court.
According to a 5 September filing, an attorney acting on behalf of Police Constable Cardiff Robinson has sought access to a prosecutor’s case file and ruling from July where the Director of Public Prosecutions “chose not to pursue a criminal charge of assault by a senior police officer against [Mr. Robinson] and gave her reasons for doing so”.
The application seeking leave for judicial review by the Grand Court requested the immediate disclosure of the case records.
“[Mr. Robinson] is currently considering bringing civil proceedings against the police commissioner and requires access to the ruling and the criminal file, especially witness statements known to be contained in the said file,” according to the judicial review application.
The police constable’s judicial review request states that on 15 February he filed an incident report with the RCIPS “which complained of an alleged assault against [Mr. Robinson] by a senior police officer, Chief Superintendant [sic] Frank Owens in charge of George Town district policing”.
For clarity, Frank Owens is an RCIPS chief inspector, not a chief superintendent. He is referred to throughout the entire judicial review application by the wrong rank.
According to Mr. Robinson’s application, the complaint file was forwarded by the RCIPS to Director of Public Prosecutions Cheryll Richards on 26 March for legal advice.
“On or about 30 July, 2012, the director of public prosecutions advised that a criminal charge of assault was made out against CS Owens, but a decision had also been made not to proceed with a charge against him on the grounds of public interest immunity,” the judicial review application stated. “In fact, [the director of public prosecutions] recommended that the matter be handled internally by police.” Ms Richards declined to comment on this story, stating that to do so under the circumstances would not be appropriate. In previous statements about the 15 February incident, a police spokesperson noted: “There is no suggestion that an assault took place.”
Speaking before the Legislative Assembly’s Finance Committee earlier this year, Police Commissioner David Baines also referenced the incident.
“Certainly, from the nature of it, no assault has taken place, even though there is somebody suggesting it has taken place and yet it has hit the media,” Mr. Baines said. Mr. Baines’ comments were made prior to the file being forwarded to Ms Richards’ office for legal advice on 26 March.
The file prepared by the prosecutor’s office was not turned over to Mr. Robinson or his attorney, the judicial review application claimed.
“The director of public prosecutions asserted that the file and the information contained therein, including witness statements, was not the property of the complainant [Mr. Robinson] and not normally disclosed in any event without a court order or by consent of the witnesses themselves for the purposes of non-criminal investigative purposes.”
A police supervisor further advised on 31 August that the case filed would not be released and that Mr. Robinson could seek the records’ release by way of court order.
“[Mr. Robinson] believes that the information contained within the director of public prosecution’s file is not of a class of high-level documents dealing with sensitive policy issues or sensitive police investigate procedures and that there are no witnesses whose identities were in the public’s interest to protect …” The judicial review application states. “[Mr. Robinson] feels that the director of public prosecution’s decision not to prosecute on the basis of public interest immunity was wrong in law and irrational.”
The court application also noted that, in any civil lawsuit filed by Mr. Robinson, reference would be made to “previous experiences with the senior officer involved”.
Related Videos
