Home
Up
951106DG

1991 Complaint

I left Bermuda in December 1990.  I had joined 3rd March 1986, my 5 year contract was due for renewal on 3rd March 1991.

My transfer to the narcotics department followed the submission of a report (an A45) which was endorsed favourably by both sergeant (now inspector) Gibbons and Inspector Cook (see: document 880421 A45).  The reply I received from then then assistant Commissioner of Police, Clive Donald, makes reference to the endorsements (see: document 880502 COP).

I do not, now have I ever, suggested I did anything other than resign.  My complaint is that I was constructively dismissed.  My resignation was not voluntary as is evidenced by the Commissioner's placing back to uniform and the timing of my departure:

While I left Bermuda in December 1990, I had worked continually and accumulated so much overtime that between December and 3rd March 1991 I was employed, I was simply 'on leave'.   I had almost three months leave or time off owing to me. 

Is it a coincidence I left on 3rd March 1991?  This was the end of my 5 years contract, a contract which, due to two pathetic (opinion) allegations, was not to be recommended for renewal.  What did 'not recommended for renewal' mean?  This is dealt with amply by the Deputy Governor's Department (see: document 951106DG)

I submitted a substantial report prior to leaving Bermuda, a copy of this can be viewed at: complaint support

I returned to the Island in May 1991 to give evidence against a group of people who were believed to be the most prolific importers of cocaine into the Island that had ever been caught.  Following the trial I received praise from the Attorney General's department (see: document 910530 AG)

When I returned, I delivered the following complaint:

COMPLAINT AGAINST POLICE

13th May 1991

Subject:    1.    Chief Inspector Ramsey

                2.     Commissioner of Police, Mr Donald

Sir,

On 27th August, 1990, I attended the Commissioner's office in company with Detective Inspector Jackson.  I was informed that I was to be transferred to uniform and that my contract was not to be renewed.  The reasons were given as follows:

1.    That I "buck" authority

2.    That I attempted to tape record Chief Inspector Ramsey

I was then thanked for the hard work that I had completed over the past year.

In effect I was unemployed as of March 3rd, 1991, through two unsubstantiated and untrue allegations.

As far as I am aware, since joining the Narcotics Department in 1998 I had never been the subject of an investigation, which the above two allegations suggest.

I am aware of the offence of insubordination and such "bucking" of authority would appear to be applicable to an offence under Force Standing Instruction A/2(2), namely insubordination.  I have never been informed of such a report, nor that I am the subject of an investigation.

The allegation pertaining to attempting to tape record a Chief Inspector is also, to my knowledge, not the subject of an investigation.

I was an expatriate worker and aware that I was subject to the whim of the Commissioner with regard to the renewal of my contract and that no detail of termination reasons need be provided.  However, reasons (as above) were given and it is my contention that not only was the Commissioner misinformed with regard to my conduct, but that Force Standing Instructions were breached.

F.S.I. A/2, First Schedule Discipline Code, states:

"3.(1) Whenever a Divisional Officer receives a report, complaint or allegation as to the conduct of a Police Officer in his division which tends to disclose the commission of an offence against discipline, he shall appoint an Investigating officer of the rank of sergeant or above to investigate and report upon the facts."

Either a report has, or has not, been submitted against me.  For the Commissioner to take such a conclusive course, an allegation or adverse report of a critical nature must have been submitted and yet I know nothing of it.

According to F.S.I. A/4(13) the following applies:

"13. Reports of an adverse nature submitted against a member of the service must be brought to the attention of the member, who should initial as having seen, before such report is admitted to his personnel file."

The reports that caused my contract to be terminated will not bear my initial because, as stated, I have never been made aware of them.

Also of note is F.S.I. A/2 First Schedule Discipline Code:

"2. Insubordination or oppressive conduct, that is to say, if a police Officer;

(b) is guilty of oppressive or tyrannical conduct towards an inferior rank; or

(c) wilfully or negligently makes a false complaint or statement against any Police Officer; or

(f) improperly withholds any reports or allegation against any police officer."

Logic dictates that the Discipline Code has been breached with regard to the allegations made against me.  reports had obviously been made against me, my contract was not to be renewed (and this was later put into writing) and yet I have no knowledge of the allegations.

I was not offered the opportunity of defending myself, the matter was never pursued toward a disciplinary hearing.

My problem commenced after a confrontation with Chief Inspector Ramsey pertaining to an overtime claim which he would not authorise and yet was later allowed in full by the Commissioner.

In short I informed Superintendent Birmingham that C.I. Ramsey did not know of the hours I had worked as I had been directed by Inspector Jackson to report to him directly, accordingly I did not use C.I. Ramsey's secretary for intelligence reports subject to current cases.

When my actions were questioned I informed Superintendent Birmingham that C.I. Ramsey was considered a "leak" in the office and was told that this allegation should remain with he and I.

I was aware of a tape recording of an informant from the United States stating that C.I. Ramsey was the source of information leaked and I commented upon C.I. Ramsey's habit of spending time on the telephone to women during office hours playing love songs down the line to them.

As of that meeting I was effectively separated from the office.

I was involved in almost every major case that took place in 1990 and have detailed working knowledge of them all to the extent that I now find myself in Bermuda once again having been requested by the prosecution to give evidence in one such case.

Coincidentally, on August 27th, 1990, I was made aware of information from U.S. Law enforcement, that C.I. Ramsey was believed to be involved in the importation network that I had been investigating.  I documented the information.

Before the confrontation situation arose I had submitted Criminal Intelligence on a frequent basis and this included information pertaining to the Commissioner of Police.

I believe that I have been the subject of malicious complaints and that the Commissioner of Police has made an error of judgement in discarding me in this manner.

I now submit this report as a formal complaint against Chief Inspector Ramsey and the Commissioner of Police, Mr Donald.

I have been forced to leave the Island and seek employ elsewhere.  The lack of security afforded to an expatriate worker such as I should be of concern to all.  A facility to discharge a person on impulse is open to abuse.

Submitted for your attention and action.

P.B.Swift

I ask you to consider not so much the allegations about 'leaks' but the fact that here I was, in the middle of a large investigation, concentrating on and committed to an enquiry when, for no substantiated reason (after receiving information about the head of the narcotics department) I am removed from the Narcotics Department.

So what are the allegations of 'bucking authority', just who made them and what is their substance?  I don't know and as you have just read, to keep them from me is a breach of Force Standing Instructions.

I am said to have attempted to tape record the Chief Inspector.  If it were not a serious matter, the very allegations would be laughable.

How does one 'attempt' to conduct a tape recording?  Did I misunderstand the allegation, was it really "attempted to tape" (see Deputy Governor's letter - 6th November 1995).

Where is the tape? 

It is said this recording took place when a Chief Inspector was present (the recording is said to be of him - it follows he was present).  What and where is the evidence?

A Chief Inspector out-ranked me many times over.  Surely if he thought he was being tape recorded he would simply demand the tape (and note my reaction if I failed to hand it over) or call upon others to assist him to secure the tape, or at the very least be a witness.  After all, as police officers we all know the importance of witnesses.

Possibly he was unsure.  But if this were the case, at some time I would be asked about the recording.  If the Officer were unsure, there exists even less reason to ensure my demise.

As no recording was made, nor did this even extend to an attempt, it follows the allegation was created at a later date, possibly immediately after a conversation - please bear in mind; I have never been advised when the alleged recording was said to have been made.

The allegation was a simple one.  Everyone in the Narcotics Office knew that I possessed the only tape recorder, plus the equipment (nothing more elaborate than a suction cap extension) to attach to a phone.  Such were the resources committed to fighting the war against Bermuda's number one (inasmuch as it led to other offences being committed) problem; narcotics.

I recorded a lot of people, some with their knowledge, others without.  this will become evident as you explore this site in the months to come. 

The Chief Inspector knew I had a tape recorder.  What he did not have was the evidence I had made, or attempted to make, a recording (because it had not occurred).   If I had done so, this could have amounted to 'bucking authority' (formally referred to as 'insubordination').

So there we have two allegations.  Please submit the complaints, investigate them and if appropriate, place me before a disciplinary board.

There was an obvious problem with this course of action; no offences means no evidence.

Another fly in the ointment; I had already defended police officers at four disciplinary hearings.  I had acted as their 'defence attorney' (a rather grand title for which I apologise).  How many of these officers had the cases against them proved? NONE.

One of the reasons I was transferred to the Narcotics department in the first place was on the understanding I ceased to represent police officers at disciplinary hearings!

Why?  Because a disciplinary hearing involves an allegation (often made by a senior officer) investigated (by a senior Officer) prosecuted (by a senior Officer) before a presiding Officer (needless to say, another senior Officer).

I accept I made no friends (in the middle ranks) defending officers in this environment. 

But I was also very familiar with the disciplinary code and the C.O.P could not make any of the charges 'stick'.  Another means of arranging my demise had to be concocted and this you have seen above.

On the other hand, my allegations are clear-cut and straightforward.  They remain so to this day:

Former Chief Inspector Ramsey and the former Commissioner of Police, Mr Donald committed offences of Oppressive Conduct against me.

If the above is not sufficient to convince you of this  fact, I refer you a currently serving police Officer's letter (statement) from 1996 (see - Officer's Letter)

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx