With the not unsurprising news that that Cayman Islands Commissioner of Police, David Baines, is to be the subject of an internal investigation, I have to ask is this fair?

The commissioner reportedly rammed the getaway vehicle in which three men accused of holding up the George Town jewellery store, Diamonds Unlimited, were trying to make their escape on the morning of New Year’s Day.

Baines has been applauded for his actions and also damned in the Cayman blog websites and other media houses citing concerns he was excessive in his actions.

My first instincts are to say, “Oh dear. The robbers deserved all they got.”

I am sure the commissioner’s first instinct was to stop the robbers getting away at all costs.

Considering the robbers were ARMED I still applaud his actions.

Of course, Ezzard Miller, independent member of the Legislative Assembly for North Side, has called for “the same vigorous inquiry into the circumstances of the arrest and the use of force in this situation, as was the case against a local officer who was charged with assault following an off-duty arrest.”

Miller was referring to Caymanian police officer, Rabe Welcome, who was suspended and charged after he broke the arm of a suspect armed with a machete during an arrest at a Bodden Town gas station while he was off duty. Welcome was found guilty, sentenced to jail but later acquitted by the Cayman Islands Court of Appeal. Welcome though lost his job.

The two situations are completely dissimilar and it is like comparing water with petrol being dowsed on someone and a lighted match being thrown on the victim. The only things in common are the actual acts of dowsing and throwing the match together with both items being liquid!

So is Baines going to get a fair hearing?

Chief Inspector Harlan Powery has been named as the investigating officer.

Is he planning on bringing in an outside officer? Powery has the rank of Chief Inspector.

It is my understanding internal police investigations in the United Kingdom have to be carried out by an officer of at least equal rank to the person under investigation to avoid ‘command influence’. In the present situation this is impossible within the RCIPS ranks.

I read recently a very informative article concerning Police Investigating Police (PIP) that is a critical analysis of public complaints against the Royal Canadian Mounted Police.

In the introduction the writers, Dr. Christopher Murphy and Mr. Paul F. McKenna say:

“Current public and political debate about the desirability and effectiveness of police investigating complaints against the police or allegations of misconduct, have reached a critical juncture in Canada and in many other Western countries. In Canada, a variety of recent public incidents or situations in which police judgments or actions have been called into question raise fundamental concerns about police accountability and governance. In the last few years events such as the inquiry into the case of Maher Arar (Commission of Inquiry into the Actions of Canadian Officials in Relation to Maher Arar, 2006), the RCMP pension scandal (Brown, 2007), the ongoing controversy surrounding the use of conducted energy weapons (Commission for Public Complaints Against the RCMP, 2008) and, most recently, the substantial recommendations of the Taman Inquiry (Taman Inquiry into the Investigation and Prosecution of Derek Harvey-Zink (Manitoba), 2008) have generated major public concern and political debate. Central to this debate are basic questions regarding the role and fairness of the conventional practice of police investigating complaints and incidents regarding their own behaviour or actions. Other questions address the relative effectiveness of various police investigative and oversight strategies and explore possible alternatives that might better satisfy the demands of public accountability and procedural justice.”

They conclude:

“This review of the academic and policy literature on the issue of police investigating police (PIP) in a governance context, suggests a number of conclusions. Notwithstanding the lack of empirically based studies on the dynamics and problems of PIP investigations and its civilian alternatives, there does appear to be an emerging consensus in the literature that traditional models of PIP are no longer seen as defensible, either as an effective model for addressing public complaints or as a method satisfying public demands for accountability. However despite consensus on the limits of the traditional PIP model there is less agreement on its civilian alternatives.

“While civilian review of PIP investigations is seen as an improvement over police only investigative models, civilian review models with limited review mandates are also seen as inadequate. Continued reliance on suspect police investigations and a lack of power to determine case outcomes has resulted in disappointing results and declining public confidence. Critics argue for more robust models of civilian review with broader mandates that include a capacity to not only review investigations but to also make influential recommendations about case outcomes, operational policies and the various organizational conditions that create complaints. The trend to a new kind of police accountability (Chan, 1999) that emphasizes internal compliance and risk management is seen as being ultimately more effective than standard external civilian review of PIP investigations.

“Review of the research also suggest that calls for “civilian-based investigation and review models” while appealing in theory need to be tempered by a realistic appreciation of the necessity of enlisting police cooperation and involvement. Some police scholars (Bayley, 1983; Reiner, 1992) grounded in an understanding of the realities and dynamics of policing and police culture suggest that PIP review models should reinforce and not undermine police responsibility and ability to govern their own behaviour. Thus the promotion of hybrid police/civilian investigative and review models that recognize a legitimate but limited role for police in the investigation and review process and combine it with vigorous civilian oversight and investigation is advocated.

“Consequently, our reading of the literature suggests that the future role of the police in the investigative and review process lies in encouraging more effective internal self-governance and accountability while also developing more powerful but collaborative civilian oversight and investigative models. To be effective these models must be able to address legitimate police concerns about informed and fair investigations of their activities while also ensuring that the public interest and legal rights are protected and that ultimately police organizations, like all public institutions, are accountable to law and public opinion. So while it is fair to say that there has been a paradigm shift away from the traditional police controlled models of investigation and oversight, the new civilian-police investigation and oversight paradigm is still being developed in various jurisdictions through trial and error as they try to strike the difficult balance between police and public concerns.”

The whole report can be found at: http://www.cpc-cpp.gc.ca/cnt/tpsp-tmrs/police/projet-pip-pep-eng.aspx#toc10

If CI Powery goes it alone and finds in favour of the Police Commissioner there will be many cries of a “whitewash” and it was a “waste of time”.

If he finds against the police commissioner he could be looked at with suspicion as to his “real” motives.

In Cayman we do have someone already here who is outside the police and commands a lot of respect. I am referring to Nicola Williams, the Cayman Islands Complaints Commissioner.

In her Biography it states:

4.11.10

Elected Vice-President of the Caribbean Ombudsman Association (CAROA), 2010-2012

23.10.09

Appointed to the judiciary of England and Wales as a Crown Court Recorder

17.8.09

Appointed as Complaints Commissioner for the Cayman Islands

1.4.2004 – 31.3.2009:

Commissioner, Independent Police Complaints Commission, London

1.9.01 – 31.3.04:

Board Member, Police Complaints Authority, London

Called to the Bar 1985. 16 years in private practice. During this time I practiced in a number of fields in the High Court, Crown Court and Court of Appeal, specializing in Criminal Law, including three successful Commonwealth death penalty appeals before the House of Lords sitting as the Privy Council

Fellow, Royal Society of Arts

Author of the legal thriller, “Without Prejudice”, published in 1997 in both the U.K. and U.S.

Legal expert on BBC World for the OJ Simpson trial verdict in 1995

Former Chair, London Regional Advisory Council, BBC.

Founder Member, Independent Advisory Group to the Metropolitan Police Service (following recommendations arising from the Macpherson Report [1999])

Part of a delegation sponsored by the British Council, lecturing Turkish police inspectors on Human Rights

Three times listed as one of the 100 most influential Black people in the U.K (1998; 2007-8; 2008-9)

Winner, Cosmopolitan magazine Woman of Achievement Award (Professions)

Presenting papers at a number of conferences, notably:

keynote international speaker, NACOLE 2005 (paper on dealing with police complaints in an age of international terrorism); and

Gloucester Conference, June 2006 (paper on the effect of the Somersett decision on current race and criminal justice issues in the UK)

International Funds Conference, Grand Cayman, January 2010 (paper on transparency)

“Confidentiality – A Key to Integrity”, Caribbean Ombudsman Association Conference, Curacao, November 2010

Is there anyone else more qualified?

Unless someone else like Williams is not brought in Baines is not going to get a fair hearing because neither side of the for Baines and against Baines will be satisfied.

His hearing MUST seem FAIR to everyone – especially an internal police investigation.