It is very disturbing there are two claims from police officers in the Cayman courts against the Royal Cayman Islands Police Commissioner, David Baines.

The first is from Senior Constable Osbert Smith, who alleges after 26 years as a police officer, was sacked by Baines, just four years ahead of his retirement, without any explanation or giving him a chance to defend his job. He was fired under a section of the police law that refers to the removal of officers in the “public interest” and “to improve the efficiency of the service”.

On the face of it, it would seem the Police Commissioner has a problem.

Any one who has been employed for a long time, and 26 years is a very long time, to claim Osbert Smith was fired “to improve the efficiency of the service” would seem to be ridiculous. The “public interest” claim is so wide of interpretation that it could be anything. That in itself is suspicious.

From UK’s Unfair Dismissal (www.roydens.co.uk/content14.htm)

“Any employer must act reasonably in all the circumstances in treating the reason for dismissing an employee as a sufficient reason for the dismissal. Not only must the employer have a valid reason for the dismissal, but also he or she must have acted reasonably in all the circumstances in dismissing the employee for that particular reason. The question whether the employer acted reasonably not only involves consideration of the way in which the dismissal was carried out, but also whether he or she acted reasonably in relation to the situation leading up to the decision to dismiss the employee. For example, if the employee was dismissed for misconduct or lack of capability, it is necessary to consider whether he or she was warned and given a chance to improve ……..”

Baines’ problem with his dismissal of Osbert Smith on the two grounds he made would seem to be wide of the mark if is found proven by Smith’s lawyer’s claim that his client “received various commendations over the years for the exceptional contribution he provided to the service. In one such commendation written to the Applicant, the Deputy Commissioner opines ‘You are a fine example of what RCIP represents and expects of its members.’  In another commendation letter a former Commissioner of Police expresses his gratitude to the Applicant for providing service over and beyond his assigned duties.”

More examples are listed of Osbert Smith’s achievements during more than a quarter of a century of service with the police, including being the first ever police constable selected to be the Driving Examiner, commendations from Chief Superintendent David Gooding for what he described as his sterling service to the district of North Side, successful convictions while serving in CID for murder and attempted murder, being the first PC to be assigned to the Internal Complaints Unit, as well as a commendation from former Magistrate Peter Jackson for his investigative skills in in relation to a fatal accident on the Airport Road.

Smith’s employment contract was renewed biennially thirteen times since his employment commenced in September 1983.

Smith wants his job back, despite all this.

The second claim against the Commissioner is even more serious.

It concerns a young police office, Cardiff Robinson, who alleges two years of bullying and two direct assaults from Chief Inspector Frank Owens.

In his legal claim Robinson states that he has been bullied by Owens for over two years and also records two specific assaults which took place in front of witnesses including Owens throwing a large log book at Robinson’s head as well as a verbal and very intimidating attack, in public, on the streets of George Town.

Robinson’s complaint to the Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP) resulted in the DPP ruling that Owens had committed common assault on Robinson, a criminal charge but  the director said it was not in the public interest to prosecute and advised the commissioner to deal with the incident internally.

Baines did not do anything.

The Professional Standards Unit (Complaints & Discipline)- PSU – who received Robinson’s complaint also did nothing.

The Claim in the Court also lists a catalogue of issues relating to the professional standards unit, the internal department within the RCIPS that investigates complaints about the police both from the public and RCIPS officers and staff.

It also says, “The Police Association which represents the interests of serving officers up to the rank of Superintendent, has publicly criticized the PSU pointing out that regardless of the fact that an investigation has commenced by the PSU, which is often not independently conducted, the commissioner alone gets to decide whether an officer, especially a senior officer, is properly and independently investigated by the PSU, yet alone, punished for wrong doing.”

With no independent police complaints commission, (the Police Commissioner sits on the board), and Baines publically saying in the Legislative Assembly that there was no incident of an assault, I can sympathise with Owens that it is doubtful he would get a fair hearing.

Some police officers have told me there is low morale throughout the RCIPS and this comes as no surprise.

With police officers risking their lives on Cayman’s streets and being unarmed whilst shots are fired at them by Cayman’s low life scum, these incidents should have been fixed quickly and fairly. A police service with low morale does not function as well as one with high morale, especially in the circumstances I have just mentioned.

Neither of these incidents should have been allowed to have happened with both officers becoming so frustrated that they have had to take recourse via Cayman’s Courts.

Commissioner Baines, I find all this appalling.