I could even ask a supplementary question, “Will Bridger be prosecuted for what could reasonably be surmised as theft of Tempura documents that belong to the RCIPS?”

I am referring to the records including legal advice, emails and memorandums (280 documents) held by ex Operation Tempura Senior Investigating Officer Martin Bridger – see iNews Cayman story published November 18 2013 “Tempura Judgment says records must not be made public”.

In the 91 page Judgment delivered by Justice Richard Williams:

“Commissioner of Police David Baines stated that upon his appointment in June 2009, he took charge and oversight of both Operation Tempura and the related second phase Operation Cealt. He indicated that that role had previously been one undertaken by the Special Operations Group (SOG). He said that he has “retained responsibility for, possession and control of all reports and records created, and all statements and legal advice obtained, during the conduct of those operations by the officers assigned to the respective investigative teams, who were at all times acting under their legal status as special constables of the Royal Cayman Islands Police Service. ”

Baines stated that it was in April 2012 that he learned that Mr. Bridger, following his departure in May 2009, had retained a very large quantity of documents generated during the Operations as well as material provided to him by Douglas Schofield of the Attorney General’s Chamber. He expressed a concern that the documents “included sensitive information from named sources who face personal danger and the risk of attack or death were such confidential information to be leaked or otherwise made public.”

Wow! Named sources who could ‘face personal danger and the risk of attack or death’!! Blimey.

The Judgment goes on to say, “Members of the special investigation team were all Special Constables and they held the rank of detective constable”. This was stated by former Assistant Commissioner of the U.K. Metropolitan Police, John Yates – Bridger’s boss.

And John Yates’ legal standing “is as an independent reviewer who is not contracted to the CIG [Cayman Island Government] or the FCO [Foreign and Commonwealth Office]. The Governor [Stuart Jack] has also recently confirmed at a meeting on 13th November 2008 his understanding of AC John Yates’ position as being “a resource person, a source of advice and a source of professional quality assurance, but not accountable for the overall management and outcome of the investigations.”

“Just prior to his retirement, Mr. Bridger drafted and submitted an updated report concerning Operation Tempura to Acting Commissioner of Police James Smith.

On page 5 he wrote:

“The TEMPURA investigation and BGP are currently the custodians of all the material provided by those in the community who have come forward and spoken about wrongdoing. ”

Importantly, he then went on to say:

“It is acknowledged that the material is ultimately the property of RCIPS. However a deliberate decision was made that this material should stay in the possession of the Investigation Team, at least until we are all satisfied that there are appropriate systems and processes in place to correctly manage such documentation.”

All of that should cement the assertion that Bridger has in his possession documents that belong to the Royal Cayman Island Police Service and he shouldn’t have taken them when Governor Jack dismissed him.

In fact the Judgment states after Baines had learnt Bridger had left with the Tempura documents he [Baines] ” and the Attorney General instructed London solicitors, to commence legal proceedings which were issued on 18th May 2012 against Mr. Bridger in England and Wales.”

Bridger’s argument is that he had the right to keep the documents because they “were privileged”.

Bridger is being sued by Cayman’s previous Police Commissioner Stuart Kernohan for his part in Kernohan’s wrongful dismissal suit against the Cayman Islands Government.

From the Judgment:

“Mr. Bridger is now of the view that, “all things being equal”, Mr. Kemohan should have the opportunity to inspect the documents. Mr. Bridger has indicated he is of the  view that, if  the  Attorney General succeeds in  this application, it  will have “far-reaching  consequences”  on his ability to successfully defend the misfeasance of office claims brought by Mr. Kernahan against him. It is submitted that the effect of granting such an injunction will be to “severely damage” Mr. Bridger’s defence in the Kernahan proceedings. Mr. Bridger contends that, with this in mind, a large number of the documents  at issue had been provided to him by Mr. Schofield to enable him to prepare his defence statement. Mr. Bridger indicates at paragraph 10 of his first affidavit that: “I am obliged to defend myself by resorting to documents that were recorded by me in the course of my independent investigation and by reference  to legal advice I received from Special Counsel appointed to advise me independently as the investigator into the circumstances underpinning Operation Tempura.”

“It is contended by Mr. Englehart Q.C. that a Government body should not be permitted to use privilege “shielding the  Plaintiff and  others from the embarrassment that disclosure” would generate and in a way sought to stifle Mr. Bridger from relying upon material that he contends is integral to his Defence, especially in a case where it is submitted there is a wider public interest in the disclosure.

“Mr. Bridger states at paragraph 27 of his first affidavit:

“I would respectfully invite the court to consider whether, as a matter of fairness, and irrespective of the issue of entitlement to privilege and the issue of waiver, I am to be prevented from defending myself against an allegation of bad faith.”

There are pages and pages in the Judgment dealing with Bridger’s privilege claim and also the Attorney General’s claim to privilege but from an opposite view in trying to suppress Bridger’s

When Bridger was “retired” from the Metropolitan Police during the Tempura investigation he was retained by Yates as a ‘Special Investigating Officer (SIO)’.

Mr Griffiths QC [acting for the Attorney General] said  “Operation Tempura was an operation of officers of the RCIPS. He submits that Mr. Bridger was one of those officers, as he was sworn in as a Special Constable. He submits that as the legal advice from the Special Counsel was funded by the Cayman Government by the budget of the Ministry of Internal and External Affairs and the Attorney General’s Chambers from its own Chambers budget that Mr. Bridger was not the client. It is contended that this is a “strong indicator that the advice belongs to the Crown as they paid for it.”

Mr. Griffiths adds, “even if Mr. Bridger were able to argue that he had authority to waive privilege, that would not continue after his retirement from the Operation.”

Justice Williams agreed.

“It is rightly submitted by Mr. Griffiths Q.C., that Mr. Bridger receives such advice not in his personal capacity, but on behalf of the Operation Tempura. It is also rightly stated that the Operation Tempura has no legal personality and therefore the advice belongs to the Government, and only the SOG and later the Commissioner of Police may arguably be able  to waive any legal privilege attached to that advice. It is clear that prior to Mr. Bridger’s retirement in April 2008, as well as during the time of Ms Lawrence, who filled his post, that no SIO sought to waive such privilege, even if it could be argued that Operation Tempura had personality and authority so to do.”

The Judge then ordered Bridger from disclosing any of the documents to anybody and a penal notice was attached to the Judgment.

However, there was no order for any of the documents in Bridger’s possession that would seem to belong to the RCIPS and to have been taken illegally, to be returned to them.

Why?

If the documents were, as it would reasonably seemed to be stolen, will Bridger be prosecuted?

If not. Why not?