Maybe, or it might be putting the record straight.

There was a swift response to an editorial and a related article that appeared in the Cayman Compass on Wednesday (2) from Cayman Islands Director of Public Prosecutions, Cheryl Richards.

She accused the Compass of clearly implying that the “prosecuting team in the Cayman Islands and thus the Cayman Islands itself are not serious about prosecuting corruption matters”. See iNews Cayman lead story today “Director of Public Prosecutions Responds”.

Richards states the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP) is not a rubber stamp for the actions or beliefs of the Police.

She says all cases submitted for consideration to the office are considered on the basis of independent and professional judgment exercised by government lawyers.

“However strongly an investigator may feel about the merits of the case he has submitted for ruling,” she maintains, “it remains the sole responsibility of this Office to objectively determine whether the material presented passes the evidential test i.e. that there is a realistic prospect of conviction if the evidence is produced to a reasonable tribunal and that the case merits prosecution in the public interest. An investigator’s sentiment about the quality of his investigation is irrelevant. What matters is the evidence that is presented for review and whether that evidence can prove all the legal elements of a particular charge under any law. This is a legal test correctly undertaken by lawyers trained to make such decisions within the independent Office and was applied across the board in respect of the 2,321 cases received from all law enforcement agencies for review during the financial year ending 30th June 2014.

“This Office does not refuse to take forward any case where the evidential and public interest tests are met.”

She pointed out that within the last 14 months her office has “successfully prosecuted cases involving four public officials under both the Anti-Corruption Law and the Penal Code. To suggest that this Office is not serious about prosecution of corruption matters because five other cases were found not to have met the evidential test is clearly erroneous.”

And there lies the problem.

To the general public as a whole and not just the media, unless it is an Editorial, there have been cases, including the five Richards mentions in passing, that appear to have significantly more evidence attached to them than others that are proceeded with.

Our own judges have criticised a number of cases that the Crown have brought before them that have very little evidence and no complainants. Even some of the plea bargains that have been accepted have seemed questionable.

And the latest case of a local lawyer being prosecuted over a trace element of cocaine that experts said defied the ability to measure seemed to me puzzling.

I understand the Director of Public Prosecutions cannot comment on specific cases but surely we the media can comment on them after we have reported the facts, even if it is not to her liking. Our readers certainly do.

And I believe all the media has published your response. We have done so on the front page in its entirety even though until now we have not reported or implied “corruption offences are not being vigorously being pursued”.

When we hear that the Anti-Corruption Unit has only two officers to deal with 23 live cases and others pending, a budget of only $260,000, it has to raise concerns in our mind whether this plays a part in the DPP’s decision making.

Deborah Bodden, who heads up the secretariat for all of the commissions relating to the constitution as well as the ACC and its unit, said recently, “The allocated funds do not meet the needs of the Anti-Corruption Commission.”

“The majority of the cases the unit are working on or have worked on are complex and as a result the lack of staff often hinders the unit’s ability to manage cases in a timely manner and to thoroughly exhaust all avenues in each investigation. It would be useful for the unit to consist of a minimum of six investigators,” she added.

This lady doesn’t protest too much, methinks. She is 100% accurate!