Warring judges create chaos in the Cayman Islands

| 06/07/2009

(The Guardian): As a cruise destination, it’s one of the most glamorous around. The Cayman Islands are a byword for Caribbean luxury, and one of the City of London’s favourite tax havens. Yet the British territory, only 20 miles long, is currently embroiled in a scandal that could have come straight from the pages of a comic novel. All the island’s judges have, at some point, been arrested, suspended, or mired in controversy. The police chief has been sacked, and one of Scotland Yard’s most senior officers – John Yates – has flown out to try to sort out the mess. He couldn’t.

 

Go to article

The Guardian is one of the UK’s leading quality newspapers, with more than 1.2 million well educated daily readers, according to the most recent National Readership Survey. Guardian readers take a total of 2.6 million holidays per year and spend on average just under £1,000 each time. The NRS reveals that they are 135% more likely than the average adult to earn £40,000 or more and have, on average, £40,000 worth of savings and investments. UK survey’s also reveal more than seven in ten Guardian readers don’t read any other quality daily newspaper.

Print Friendly, PDF & Email

Category: Local News

About the Author ()

Comments (24)

Trackback URL | Comments RSS Feed

  1. Anonymous says:

    Silly menshould keep their ugly faces out of the affairs of others

    especially when they understand NOTHING of what they are trying to make known

    ignorance

  2. anonymous says:

    That survey tells us a lot. Quote, "more than seven in ten Guardian readers don’t read any other quality daily newspaper."

    In fact the paper panders to a niche market who are very selective about what they choose to believe and this story must neatly fit in with their existing prejudices about both the Met and the Cayman Islands.

    However, taken in the context of the paper’s pseudo-intellectual, leftish/liberal striving for the truth editorial stance I am surprised that such an inaccurate report went into print  because, at a time when the paper is struggling financially and under fire for sloppy or biased reporting, it hardly serves to enhance their reputation for accurate reporting.

    • Anonymous says:

        I can very well see why the "Guardian is under fire for sloppy or biased reporting…."  But then UK journalism byand large has never been a standard bearer. 

      I now see why they are such a thorn in the flesh for most people in the public’s eye in the UK. 

  3. Spirit of '66 says:

    "There is a piece of legislaiton (sic) or regulation somewhere that prohibits the UK from interfering in the financial business of the Islands.  I cannot, as I said, refer you to it specifically, but it is there."

    As a matter of UK constitutional law I suspect that must be apocryphal.  By Orders in Council there would be an absolutely unfettered ability to pass laws in respect of the governance of the Cayman Islands.   That is the theory. In the real world I suspect the UK would rather poke and annoy Cayman into independence which would be the most effective way of destroying its offshore industry very quickly. 

    • Anonymous says:

      "As a matter of UK constitutional law I suspect that must be apocryphal.  By Orders in Council there would be an absolutely unfettered ability to pass laws in respect of the governance of the Cayman Islands".

      Not quite.  It is true that Orders in Council are issued by Royal Prerogative. However, the Royal Prerogative is not absolutely unfettered but its exercise may be challenged in the English courts by way of judicial review applying Wednesbury principles, in particular on the basis that it has failed to take into account the interests of those affected (in this case, us) and is therefore an abuse of power. Nonetheless, it is correct that should the interests of the UK and the territory conflict the courts will find that the UK is entitled to prefer its own interests.       

      See the House of Lords decision in R (on the application of Bancoult) v. Secy of State 2008. It is a long but fascinating read.  

      http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld200708/ldjudgmt/jd081022/banc-1.htm

  4. Anonymous says:

    The UK does subsidise the Cayman economy by permitting one of its territories to operate offshore financial services which negatively  impacts upon the tax recoveries of the UK Government.

    • Anonymous says:

      To poster who wrote "The UK does subsidise the Cayman economy by permitting one of its territories to operate offshore financial services which negatively  impacts upon the tax recoveries of the UK Government":

      As far as I am aware that this not an accurate statement. I wish I could refer you more specifically to the information from which this comes, but I am rushing to catch a plane.  Perhaps some member of the public can.

      There is a piece of legislaiton or regulation somewhere that prohibits the UK from interfering in the financial business of the Islands.  I cannot, as I said, refer you to it specifically, but it is there.

      In any case, there are so many tax information agreements in place now, that I am sure most of that does not and will no longer exist.

      Further, most of our business (more than 80%) comes from the US — the UK have never really been a major source of business.

      • fuzzy says:

        I believe that the writer of this article ,David Leigh wants a Cayman vacation so he wrote this hoping that he would be sent out here or perhaps invited by Caymanians to come out and verify the facts.

    • Anonymous says:

      "The UK does subsidise the Cayman economy by permitting one of its territories to operate offshore financial services which negatively  impacts upon the tax recoveries of the UK Government".

      Perhaps in your dictionary that is what "subsidise" means. It could be more sensibly applied by saying that Cayman subsidises the UK economy with all the Brit lawyers and accountants who make their fortunes here and spend it on expensive homes, cars and holidays over there.   

    • Anonymous says:

      In reply to

      "The UK does subsidise the Cayman economy by permitting one of its territories to operate offshore financial services which negatively  impacts upon the tax recoveries of the UK Government."

      Now ain’t that interesting?! Isubmit that the UK, America and other "tax your people to the hilt countries" need to put in place legislation and other systems to prevent their tax dollars from leaving their shores. They need to stop whining, complaining and expecting other ountries to police their citizen’s financial activity overseas! Since they are such superpowers they should at least display the ability to govern their own tax regimes and banking sectors.

      • Anonymous says:

         

        This is in refence to the poster who thought that my earlier comment on the UK’s right to interfere in the Islands’ internal business was “apocryphal” (hmmm.)
        I am now back from my trip – as I said I was rushing to catch a ‘plane – and now have a moment to explain further.
        The constitutional convention that I was referring to is based on the principle that internal government has been delegated [by the UK Parliament (through the Queen by the Constitutional Orders in Council)] to the local Legislature, Cabinet and Judiciary, with powers reserved to the Queen only for external affairs. There is also the general reservation for the “peace, order and good governance” of the Islands, but that, too, by convention, has been understood not to involve the ordinary management of the internal affairs of the Islands. In other words while we are not as advanced as, say Bermuda, we do have a form of internal self government.
        Incidentally, there can be no doubt that that includes the operation of the administration of justice in keeping with the constitutional checks and balances, leaving no room whatsoever for the sort of incursion which was threatened by Operation Tempura with the sanction of the Governor. They acted in clear breach of the Constitution.
        But this particular aspect of the discussion all started with my contention that the UK constitutionally does not have a right to interfere into the territory’s operations of its international tax initiatives (in response to the poster who said that the UK had “allowed” us to function thus.)
        This debate revolves around whether the UK’s remit for external affairs trumps our right to internal self government to the extent that there may be a perceived conflict of interest between “protection” of our financial industry and ensuring that we do not encourage the breach of laws of other countries. My own view is that in reality there is no such conflict of interest whatsoever and we need to get the UK to understand that.
        So apocryphal? Maybe not so much….
  5. jurisprudence says:

    Looks like and accurate summing up of the Facts.Truth may be and offence to many but not a sin

    • Anonymous says:

      In the world of journalism, it is the context in which the facts are presented that makes the difference.  You can take facts and the way you spin it can totally change the picture.

      Put the facts in the true context and you will see the difference:

      1. The Chief Justice indeed initiate a hearing into the conduct of one judge.  The Islands Constitutional process requires this type of action to ensure that the highest standards of propriety, probity and fairness are observed in the Islands’ Courts. 

      2. The story stated that “Legal and police figures have flown out to try to stabilise the situation.”  The way tha information was stated, it would not be unreasonable for readers to construe this comment in the general context of the Courts.  However, everyone here is aware that UK officers arrived to investigate a police internal matter (dubbed Operation Tempura, actually originally initiated on the recommendation of the former Commissioner of Police). 
       
      3. To contextualise the matter of the second judge: He was exonerated by noted UK jurist Sir Peter Cresswell. Sir Peter stated on page 119 of his judgement that "There was no material … to suggest that the applicant (the judge) had asked (a witness in the Tempura investigation) to act unlawfully."  

      Consequently, Justice Cresswell held, on pp. 116 to 119 of his judgement, that the judge had not, as had been alleged, committed the offence of Misconduct in Public Office. The judge concerned was, as everyone is aware, awarded damages because the court deemed that he had not misbehaved in public office and becaue of his unlawful arrest — carried out by the UK team.
       
      So contrary to the characterisation of the facts in the article, the Court has demonstrated its commitment to the highest standards of the practice of jurisprudence, in the case of one judge; in the other, its integrity has been confirmed.
       
      This notion that somehow we need to bring in the UK "Cavalry" to "stabilise" things here as portrayed in the article was simply not true. 
       
      The rebranded Tempura (Cealt) is said to be continuing its enquiries — and that has nothing to do with the Courts.
       
       
        
       
    • Anonymous says:

      Juisprudence. The article is clearly not balanced or fair and is inaccurate in some places and is motivated by a desire to ridicule Cayman.

      For example

      1. "All the island’s judges have, at some point, been arrested, suspended, or mired in controversy".

      Actually we have four judges. Justice Quin does not fall within any of the above categories. In addition we have acting judges like Justice Foster who also does not fall within any of these categories. 

      2.  "Britain controls the Caymans, via governor Stuart Jack, and subsidises the island’s budget by licensing thousands of offshore companies, many involving tax avoidance schemes".

      Britain does not of course subsidise Cayman’s budget and certainly does not do so be licensing offshore companies. 

      3.   "The tribunal failed to uncover the mysterious "Leticia Barton", source of much of the trouble".

      That was not the objective of the tribunal. 

      What is most notable is its failure to explain the role of the Governor in all of this, and that no real corruption has been uncovered.   

       

  6. Anonymous says:

    I think a libel case would be appropriate now.  I expect they could get a fair trial here in Cayman, their malicious lies notwithstanding.  

    The Guardian is a joke, an embarrassment to the UK,  akin to the disgraceful National Inquirer with stories about aliens dating the publisher’s mothers-in-law.  Don’t take it too seriously.  

    I mean sue them out of existence of course, but don’t lose sleep over it.

  7. Redbayer says:

    Report inaccuracies to: reader@guardian.co.uk

    Letters: letters@guardian.co.uk

     

  8. Redbayer says:

    That article is a disgrace.

    I don’t think that Judges Quin and Foster – neither of whom have been arrested, suspended or mired in controversy – can be too happy with it. The Guardian owes them a massive apology.

  9. Anonymous says:

    Some people know better than to read The Guardian………..

  10. Anonymous says:

    We may have home grown problems as well. 

    Some people in the Channel Islands seem to be having a laugh at Cayman’s expense at the moment because of some big OECD tax meeting in Paris this past week. It may be that everybody at the meeting and everybody outside of Cayman who has heard about the meeting is having a laugh at Cayman’s expense.

    Apparently someone representing Cayman insulted OECD officials in the media a couple of weeks ago, and now someone from government asked the OECD not to approve Cayman’s new unilateral tax information legislation at last week’s OECD meeting in Paris as this would move Cayman to the OECD white list immediately while the new government wants to ensure that it and not the previous government get the credit for Cayman moving to the white list. The people at the meeting understandably thought it completely insane that anyone would want their country to stay on the OECD grey list just so that some politicians or other people could score a few political points in Cayman.
     
    I hope that this story is not true but if there is any truth to it then my country truly is an international joke and whoever it is inside government that is telling the OECD not to put Cayman on the white list so that the new government can pretend to be heroes ought to be publically shamed. Who could do such a thing?
     
    Was there a big OECD tax meeting in Paris last week? Does anyone know if there is anyone in the government who is in direct contact with senior OECD officials who could do such a thing? How can we find out if the government is actually doing this and whether this is just a rogue person or if it is official government policy to try to keep Cayman on the grey list so that the new government can claim credit? Does the Freedom of Information law cover this kind of thing?
    • Anonymous says:

      The only way Freedom of Information could help out would be if there were records existing pertaining to the request that the OECD not approve the unilateral tax information legislation, which, if the allegation were true, probably don’t exist. However, it shouldn’t be very difficult for someone to verify that a Caymanian representative insulted OECD officials in the media recently and it should be equally easy to verify if there were an OECD tax meeting in Paris. If these events could be confirmed by CNS, it might make for a very interesting story to investigate the main allegation of this comment I am replying to – namely the request that the OECD not recognize the tax legislation for domestic political points…

      Also, just as a personal note, I hope people realize the tax agreements that Mac and his crew are running around and signing were negotiated by the previous government… just saying…

  11. Anonymous says:

    The article is so factually inaccurate, I would have contacted the writer but his email isn’t listed. There is no comment section but hey it’s the Guardian… what would you expect. They make money by doing this… screaminghalf truths… misrepresenting the facts and causing panic.

     

    • Clearviewer says:

      The guardian,the U K what are we all wrangling about, the U K wants control of every thing and they will stop at notthing to destroy the caymans, they have to stand up to them and take control of their own destiny, they are out to destroy us  all. I cant wait to be rid of their pompous attitude towards the colonies. They do so much underhanded things and dont want to face the facts.  Conquer and divide thats the Brits for you.

      • pastor bucket says:

        "the U K wants control of every thing and they will stop at notthing to destroy the caymans"

        Really? what evidence do you have for that?

        And what would this island be without British Influence? Jamaica? a mosquito ravaged turtling stop?

        You cant have it all ways, it may not be perfect but without the Crown/Brit link I wonder how good the average Caymanian life would be…multiple cars? Jet Skis? Big TVs? I seriously doubt it

        I love the posters on here – majority seem to think that "god" really did place them here…let’s all ignore plate tectonics, slavery etc

         

         

  12. I told you So! says:

     This is what the UK wants….

     

    why are Caymanians still doubting the real instructions of this Governor!!

     

    This is proof.