Home
Up
Apply to Narco'
Mission
progress

Complaint

On 14th October 1998, a formal complaint was posted to the current Commissioner of Police (Bermuda).  Details of the complaint are displayed here.  Please excuse my hand-holding manner in describing the complaint and why, I believe, the offence of Oppressive Conduct by the former COP cannot be defended.

In the briefest of terms the offence of Oppressive conduct has been committed because:

• My contract was not to be renewed because it was alleged I bucked authority and attempted to tape record a chief inspector
• These are allegations / reports which were never brought to my attention [a breach of FSI A/4(13)].
• An investigating officer was not appointed [a breach of 3(1) FSI A/2 ]
• Improperly withholding a report / allegation constitutes Oppressive Conduct [FSI A/2 (f)]

The following is a more detailed explanation:

Let me, for a moment, put to one side statements that I was "subverted and betrayed"; that I was put back to uniform when investigating a cocaine importation network to which the O.I.C. Narcotics had been linked; and that I was generally receiving a hard time from my 'co-workers'.

I now ask you to consider some straightforward concepts, and fundamental principles:

• as a Bermuda police officer, no matter what heinous crimes I may be accused of (even if I committed the alleged crimes, or worse), I am entitled to be dealt with in accordance with Force Standing Instructions (FSI); the regulations or laws governing my service, my contract of employment.
• In addition, not only must the 'rules' be followed when dealing with any alleged or suspected breaches of FSI, I am entitled to enjoy the benefits of the over-riding principle that 'a person is innocent until proven guilty'.

This entire site is born of what I perceive as this injustice.

If someone accuses you of a 'crime' or claims you have wronged them, the place for the facts to be decided is a Court (Civil or Criminal).   So it is with the police service, a disciplinary board hears such grievances.  This is a structured, disciplined approach to disputes.  It is civilised.

To this day, no one has provided an explanation for the adoption of the procedure used to ensure my demise and despite the current Commissioner of Police (Jean-Jacques Lemay) advising that this matter remains open, my previous correspondence (1997) has been ignored. 

The allegations are clear-cut.

I was accused of:

1. bucking authority
2. attempting to tape record the OIC Narcotics (Mr. Ramsey).

The Deputy Governor (1995) has confirmed this and I quote his letter:

The reasons given (for my contract not to be renewed) were and I quote,"general non conformist attitude and the incident on 26th August 1990, when he attempted to tape an interview between himself and Detective Chief Inspector Ramsey".

I deny the allegations, but this really is unimportant, it detracts from the basic principle that I am entitled to a fair hearing.  On this page I will not detract from my argument and defend myself in detail, other than to say the allegations are untrue.

If you know me, or if you have formed an opinion of me from reading this site, your gut reaction may be that I am the sort who would be guilty of the above.

But that matters not, it is not the point.  The fact is, the above two 'complaints' (they could hardly be considered 'endorsements', they cost me my career) must be the subject of an investigation and 'trial' (disciplinary hearing), my terms and conditions (the laws governing my employment) demand it.  The facts to consider are:

1. These are allegations made against me
2. The allegations were withheld

That these are 'false complaints or statements' was never tested, I was not afforded the hearing I was entitled to, I was not able to prove my innocence.   It is the procedure to which I object and which I state with all certainty is in absolute contradiction to my entitlement.

I have been forced to leave Bermuda with a blotted copy-book, why?  Because the COP did not act in accordance with F.S.I. 

But why cannot the Commissioner, the chief police officer, not dismiss officers at his whim?   The answer is obvious; everyone has rights.   It is due to the Commissioner of Police's abuse of the process that I find myself no longer in Bermuda.

The relevant aspects of FSI, the 'laws' Bermuda Police officers work by, are as follows:

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."

• There were allegations of an offence against discipline.
• No investigating officer was appointed
• No report was submitted

I have established that the reason for my demise was:

"general non conformist attitude and the incident on 26th August 1990, when he attempted to tape an interview between himself and Detective Chief Inspector Ramsey"

• Who 'reported, complained or alleged as to my conduct', my "general non conformist attitude"? 
• Did my alleged non conformist attitude tend to disclose the commission of an offence against discipline?

If no one reported my "non conformist attitude" then what did I have to worry about?  If someone did report that I was 'non conformist' , did this constitute an offence against discipline? 

If 'no', again, I had nothing to worry about.  If 'yes' then I had a problem, I was to be the subject of a discipline investigation as FSI clearly states the:

Divisional Officer ..... shall appoint an Investigating officer of the rank of sergeant or above to investigate and report upon the facts

Please also consider another aspect of FSI; the allegations that I have a "general non conformist attitude and the incident on 26th August 1990, when he attempted to tape an interview between himself and Detective Chief Inspector Ramsey" are adverse reports, if they were not I would still be in the Bermuda Government's employ.  I therefore refer you to the following extract from FSI:

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

"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."

Not a 'should be brought to the attention of the member'.  This is clear-cut; the report MUST be brought to my attention, furthermore I should have initialed them. 

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.  The final extract from FSI I ask you to consider 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) willfully or negligently makes a false complaint or statement against any Police Officer; or

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

My alleged

"general non conformist attitude and the incident on 26th August 1990, when he attempted to tape an interview between himself and Detective Chief Inspector Ramsey"

are false complaints or statements.

Furthermore, they constitute an

improperly withheld report or allegation against a police officer (myself).

At best, from the Bermuda police service's perspective, the allegation could have been true.  BUT ... they still have an obligation to bring the report or allegations to my attention, appoint an investigating officer.

You may not feel

"general non conformist attitude and the incident on 26th August 1990, when he attempted to tape an interview between himself and Detective Chief Inspector Ramsey"

constitutes a report, allegation or 'offence' worthy of costing an officer his career.  In employment terms, I suffered the 'death penalty', my service was terminated.

What is non conformist attitude?  I was always described as a loose cannon (to which I objected), Superintendent Birmingham supported my behaviour and I achieved results.  Dismissal without recourse, who imposed martial law within the police service without announcing it?

A tyrannical regime is exactly what existed (and possibly this continues to be the case today); Clive Donald acted as though the absolute ruler of those the police service employed, but he did so unjustly, exercising power outside his documented authority.

The leader of the very service charged with upholding law and order disregarded the service's laws.

'Non conformist attitude' is exactly as it sounds; 'grey or fuzzy'.  No one has said 'insubordinate', if they had done I would ask them to cite examples.  I would like examples of my 'non conformist attitude', I worked every hour available, I hardly had time to think about whether I was 'conforming' but clearly I was not.  Just how did I not 'conform' such that it warranted my removal?

It would be reasonable to expect any decent organisation to take the time and write a brief report to me outlining the 'concerns' that existed with regard to my alleged 'non conformist' behaviour.  No such document exists, this was simply a means to an end.

As for attempting to tape record a Chief Inspector.   Let us, just for one moment accept that this occurred.  I would like to know why the Chief Inspector failed to secure the tape; demand it from me; call another officer as a witness once he realsied he was being tape recorded; submit a report there and then (which should have been brought to my attention).

This allegation is pathetic and if you think carefully about it, makes no sense.  Ask yourself what was supposed to have happened.  Did the Officer, during our conversation believe he was being tape recorded.  If so, he should have taken appropriate action immediately.  We are talking about the head of the Narcotics Department, a Detective Chief Inspector - it would be reasonable to assume he had some knowledge of 'evidence' and the need / means to secure it.

Or was this plot hatched after the conversation had taken place.  Did the officer, having spoken with me, think to himself "that officer was tape recording me"?  If so, how ridiculous the allegation.  He could not possibly have any evidence, other than a gut reaction.  Insufficient to warrant a complaint and / or my dismissal - in normal circumstances.

I would also like to know what the Chief Inspector was frightened about.  Why was he so concerned I may have tape recorded him?  Why, if they had not said anything incriminating (because they had not committed an incriminating act), would someone object so vehemently to a  conversation being recorded?

The allegations were clearly conveyed directly to the Commissioner of police.  The incident was said to have occurred on 26th August 1990, I was placed before the Commissioner of Police 27th August 1990 and advised about my demise, based on the allegations.  Clearly, in this space of 24 hours, no report was submitted, no investigation undertaken, certainly I was never afforded the opportunity to defend myself whether by statement or hearing.

In light of the above it appears clear Detective Chief Inspector Dennis Ramsey and the Commissioner of Police Clive Donald conspired to ensure my employment in Bermuda was terminated on the basis of false allegations.

No recording took place.  But did my alleged action warrant dismissal?  This is what it amounted to, agreed by the Deputy Governor, peter Willis (1995).

My current complaint is therefore very straightforward:

The former  Commissioner of Police, Clive Donald, did not

• bring allegations / reports to my attention;
• appoint an investigating officer in respect of said allegations / reports

and is therefore guilty of Oppressive Conduct and in turn has brought the service into disrepute.

With regard to former Chief Inspector Dennis Ramsey, whilst I refute any allegation regarding the tape recording of a conversation, this would inevitably come down to his word against mine (albeit he has no evidence'.  I do not believe an offence could be proved against me with regard to the allegation, similarly, I could not support (other than by my word) an allegation of his submitting a false report.  Stalemate.

However, as my Divisional Officer it appears he too did not

• bring allegations / reports to my attention;
• appoint an investigating officer in respect of said allegations / reports

It is my understanding former Superintendent George Rose was assigned to the investigation of my complaint.  George Rose has  has failed to consider the allegations in full and paid no heed to the fact that neither Clive Donald or Dennis Ramsey did not

• bring allegations / reports to my attention;
• appoint an investigating officer in respect of said allegations / reports

the Deputy Governor of the time, J. P. Kelly, who "looked into this matter and found no substance to the allegation" appears to have conspired with the above parties in that he has not identified the obvious breaches of FSI, or has acquiesced to the commission of said breaches.  By reference to Mr. Kelly's letter of 1st September 1993, he advises "the essence of your complaint is unfair dismissal ...".  this, in light of the above, is a clear misrepresentation of the facts.

The subsequent Deputy Governor, Peter Willis, who wrote "I have looked at the previous correspondence and must agree with my predecessor ......" appears to have conspired with the above parties in that he has not identified the obvious breaches of FSI, or has acquiesced to the commission of said breaches.

I resubmitted my complaint to both the COP and Governor's Office during 1997, accompanied by new evidence, namely that Inspector Gibbons had now admitted I was 'subverted and betrayed'.   Despite the current COP, Mr. Lemay's, recent comment (reported in the Royal Gazette) that the matter was open pending new evidence, no action was taken.  The information, received by the police 19th May 1997, was ignored.  Without good and sufficient cause the COP neglected, or omitted, promptly and diligently to attend to or carry out his duty as a police officer; namely appoint an investigating officer.   Contrary to FSI A/2 (4) , neglect of duty.  Failure to appoint an investigating officer being contrary to FSI.

The Governor's Office, at the time of my writing, appears to have conspired with the COP in that they have not acted on the information or have acquiesced, by silence, to the inactivity.

The comments to the Royal Gazette by the current Commissioner of Police, Mr. Jean-Jaques Lemay, if reported correctly in relation to my failure to make evidence available and that the file remains open pending new evidence are incorrect and as such are reasonably likely to bring discredit on the reputation of the Police, contrary to FSI A/2 (1).

It should be remembered that there is an Officer, Inspector Gibbons, who is aware I was subverted and betrayed.  My allegations (detailed above) stand alone.  However, I believe Inspector Gibbons should be asked precisely what he means by my being 'subverted and betrayed', it may well transpire that the truth will be located and more offences will become apparent.   Irrespective, Inspector Gibbons is willfully withholding a report or allegation.

I have asked Mr. Lemay, in my letter of 14th October 1998, to re-open the investigation and pursue the above allegations.

As of January 1st 1999, there has been no reply from the Commissioner of police or the Governor's Office

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx