Ex-governor escapes law suit

| 28/05/2011

(CNS):  Full story — Stuart Jack, the former governor of the Cayman Islands, will not be held liable for the claim made by Stuart Kernohan, the former police commissioner whom he sacked, a judge has said. Following two days of legal wrangling by lawyers representing the Attorney General’s Chambers, the former Operation Tempura lead investigator and Kernohan, the judge made the decision that the claim did not demonstrate that the governor had acted illegally and therefore it should be the attorney general that should be left to face the law suit on behalf of the government. He made no decision on Bridger, however, as the former Metropolitan Police cop had not yet had the opportunity to defend his application to have his name taken off the writ.

Although the judge has prevented Kernohan from making a personal claim against Jack by denying his claim of misfeasance, Lord Justice Alan Moses has left room for Kernohan to seek more damages from the Cayman Islands government over and above the claim for loss of earnings if he is successful in winning his unlawful dismissal case and a breach of trust and confidence.

In his full ruling the judge gave some indication of his sympathy for Kernohan’s case and spelt out in detail the reasons for his judgement and his views on how Kernohan was treated.

Reviewing the circumstances of the case, Justice Moses described the incidents surrounding Operation Tempura as a “series of unusual events” that led to Kernohan’s dismissal. He revealed how Kernohan had been told in the first instance that he would be placed on required leave for only one month in March 2008, which would be under constant review. He was told at that point that he was not under investigation, despite the UK investigating team having already tried and failed to get a search warrant for his house. However, in May 2008 the special police investigation team led by Martin Bridger revealed that he was in fact under investigation for misconduct in a public office in connection with the Net News entry.

Bridger’s theory was that Kernohan not only acted improperly by asking the employees to search the newspaper offices but the former police commissioner did so for an ulterior motive against Anthony Ennis, though it was not clear exactly what the motive was.

It was not until September 2008 that Kernohan finally learned, as a result of the hearing regarding Justice Alex Henderson’s unlawful arrest, that the chief justice had already ruled that Kernohan had done nothing wrong when he authorized the employees to try and get copies of information that would indicated that the deputy commissioner was leaking sensitive information to the owner of the newspaper, Desmond Seales.

Kernohan was allegedly sacked for not returning to the island when asked to do so by the governor and for making disparaging remarks about members of Cabinet but was not officially cleared from the Operation Tempura investigation until more than a year after he was placed on required leave in April 2009.

In his claim against the various parties Kernohan claims that the governor acted in bad faith as he knew there was no proper grounds to place him on required leave, but not only did he do it, he allowed it to go on and on without responding to correspondence from Kernohan’s legal team.

The judge disagreed that this was an indication of malfeasance as he said it was not illegal to place Kernohan on suspension, so rather than bad faith it was more a case of “an error of judgement”. The judge also noted that the continuation of Kernohan’s required leave was at the advice of Bridger, who was the investigating officer, and the governor was not in a constitutional position to interfere with the operational details of the investigation and therefore was not himself directly liable, but the judge pointed out that the actions still bolstered Kernohan’s claim against the government in general.

He said the fact that Bridger did not accept the findings of the chief justice and carried on his investigation regardless did not mean the governor was acting in bad faith by not stopping him. He was, the judge stated, “restraining himself” from interfering with a police investigation, as he should.

The judge said the accusations that Kernohan was placed on required leave and kept there because the governor was trying to direct attention from his own involvement in the decision to allow the two Net News employees to enter their boss's office on the hunt for incriminating material made no sense.

He pointed out that if the chief justice had already noted that the entry into the newspaper office was not a crime then the governor had nothing to fear by being part of the decision to either instruct or agree to the decision to try that option before getting a search warrant or calling in the outside officers.  “There is no rhyme or reason why the governor would need to distract attention … as his conduct, as already stated by the chief justice, was not considered to have been an offence,” the judge added.

In a ruling that took over two hours to deliver, the UK judge did point out, however, that this did not mean that many of the claims Kernohan was making about his treatment in the narrative of events might be valid. He said the governor did have a responsibility to see Kernohan did not suffer and that there was oversight of Bridger’s investigation.

The judge concluded that the Cayman Islands government in the form of the Attorney General was the correct defendant in Kernohan’s suit as there “was no basis for joining” Stuart Jack in person.
He pointed out that Kernohan had a wrongful dismissal case but more importantly there was room for damages to be claimed because of other issues that could be found to be breaches of trust and confidence but he said he would not allow a claim for aggravated damages in the case.

The judge said he believed that this was a case which “cries out for mediation” and that the parties should try to reach a settlement to save on expenses and to avoid further mistakes. He guessed that there would not be any winners in a long trial but lots of losers. He pointed out that during the investigation the ruling of the chief justice was kept from Kernohan and that he had never been given the chance to make representations about that. He also criticised the fact that despite the CJ’s ruling the Operation Tempura investigation continued without proper review.

The question of Bridger’s liability also remains unanswered as the judge said he could not rule on the claim against him as he had only just been served the papers directly when the hearing opened because of the situation that had arisen with his defence. Bridger had been represented by the attorney general’s office but as a result of a closed ruling made by Justice Charles Quin some weeks earlier the AG’s chambers had come off record, leaving the former Operation Tempura boss to fend for himself.

Anthony Akiwumi, who had come on record for the former Scotland Yard cop, pointed out at the end of the judge’s ruling that according to the Cayman Islands 1972 constitution, which was in effect at the time of Operation Tempura, the governor did have considerably more responsibility for the police, as he sought to define the position of his client who was faced with defending the suit without the protection of the Cayman government.

With the parameters of Kernohan’s claim now defined, unless the parties decide to settle there will be a long process of hearings and document exchange between the lawyers before the case itself comes before a judge to be heard. Setting out a timetable over the coming months, theparties agreed that if there was no mediation they would probably not be ready to set a date for trial until the end of the year and fixed a date for December for all the parties to return to the court.

Print Friendly, PDF & Email

Category: Local News

About the Author ()

Comments (60)

Trackback URL | Comments RSS Feed

  1. Mulatto says:

    I would crawl back on my knees and row a boat cross the NS every day for water N food like my good old great grand dad did before I give him ONE RED Cent of MY KYD's!

    But, Caymanians are not like that….well, then dog eat our suppa! 

    Let us all try and find deep down in our souls, the great Mr. Ormond Panton vibes for just one day, just one day!

  2. Anonymous says:

    Of course HE is free… Cayman is the Cash Cow.. not him!

    (Just ask teh others who went grinning to the bank!)

  3. Anonymous says:

    I would love to see Papa Smurf have to come back here to face the music for al that he did to us but in the end you know all that will mean is that the British will make us pay for that too.

    Good Riddance Stuart Jack!! I hope that you will allow us the dignity to live in our country without you ever having to darken it ever again!!

  4. cow itch says:

    Well… they're not getting me money!  And that's final!  I will roll over, pass gas, and die first!  This ground beef not budging!!!

    • anon says:

      okaaaay… ummm… cow, when was the last time you checked your bank account?

    • Anonymous says:

      I do think that it is ridiculous that the former Governor Stuart Jack (or the FCO) is not being held to account for his seriously incompetant  actions (at a minimum) which have had such catastrophic consequences for this country and the lives and wellbeing of so many.


      An important message is being lost and distorted in all of this careless chatter about the case.

      The aim of this investigation was to counter suspected corruption/criminal relationship at a very high level of the RCIP

      As a society we should encourage people to take action against suspected crime in general. This attitude of allowing crime to happen and turning a blind eye is a massive problem now, with few people willing to turn in criminals or give information to the police.

      We should therefore be careful about how we beat up on those involved with the Cayman Net News incident. Who were doing thier civil duty to this end. And whose actions were sanctioned by the highest powers (The Governor and AG).



  5. Cayman Burglar says:

    When wealth is lost,nothing is lost;when health is lost,something is lost;when character is lost,all is lost. Between our politicians and our government official this appears to be the very case. As result of this very dire and UK instigated situation Cayman officialdom is unable to mount a serious look at this apparent UK engineered operation which we will never get to the bottom of.. If it seems like Deja Vue it is Cayman not too long ago Mr Brian Gibbs and his network of UK “helpers” in our little society were underming us and like that situation,Cayman paid rather than rout the rodents who live amongst us, and like that situation the parasites will again walk off with their money in hand. Is there no men in our political arena who will even say something about this matter or god forbid take some form of punitive action about the money being taken from the public purse to pay for this bull$!#%. The silence about this matter while the UK hold us hostage with our budget speaks volumes about our leaderships character. What if our leaders had just a little integrity. My final question or swipe is where the hell is Gibb’s replacement and Da man and his minions who got this all started FCO man about town Larry “otricks” Covington. See you soon Old Bye! Caymanians are spineless wimps eh!

  6. Anonymous says:

    This is one of the most corrupt countries that I have ever lived!   This place needs a clean sweep of the entire government system, XXXX.

    • Wessex says:

      wow!  so you haven't traveled much?  I guess you haven't been to the uk.  🙂

    • Anonymous says:

      And where are you from, Pleasantville? I'm sure the other countries where you have lived all have their share of corruption too. Stop trying to make Cayman seem like it's the worst, most corrupt place in the world with your stupid comments.

    • Anonymous says:

      I agree with Wessex. Not sure where you have lived but there are many places much more corrupt than Cayman. Perhaps you put on the blinkers when it comes to your home country.

  7. Anonymous says:

    Bend over Caymanians here it comes again. Only one thing worse would be having Mac in charge. Talk about being caught bertween a rock and a hard place.

    • BORN FREE says:

      After his term as Governor here in Cayman XXXX. It is my belief that he is absolutely the worst governor we have ever had, hopeless & useless! I was happy the day I saw the back of him! Good riddance Jack!

      • Anonymous says:

        Get it please.

        Governor Jack was just an obedient lower level UK civil servant foot soldier following orders from the Boss – the UK Government.  Stop blaming him personally.

        Get it please.

  8. Anonymous says:

    Mr. John Evans,

    You have had much comment on this matter from the time that the whole fiasco became public. But it is noted that you have never explained what motivated you to become complicit in a scheme to burglarize (yes burglarize) your own boss' office. It is well known that you were a personal acquaintance of the Grand Court judge whose XXXX 'curiousity' is alleged to have prompted the 'search'. So for all your commentary, please explain to the Caymanian public why you found it so easy to become involved in such a scheme.

    Disregard the fact that my post is labelled Anonymous, that is my choice which CNS has respected and does not make my query any less legitimate. 

    CNS Note: The chief justice made it clear in his rulings of February and April 2008 that no burglary had taken place at the Net News offices on 3 September 2008.

    • John Evans says:

      Tell me who you are and I'll be happy to give you a full answer.

      What you are saying behind the protection of anonymity is nonsense and you know it.


      • Anonymous says:

        Maybe the person who wrote what you answered might be afraid that his office is burglarized too? So he or she are reluctant to say their name?

      • Keyser Söze says:

        I am Keyser Söze.

    • Legal Eagle says:

      burglarize, burglarise [ˈbɜːgləˌraɪz]
      (Law) (tr) US and Canadian to break into (a place) and steal from (someone); burgle

      Would you just tell us how Mr Evans committed this heinous crime when there was no forced entry and nothing was taken.

      I'd say your comments are libelous.

      • Legal Beagle says:

        Where did you get your law degree from – was it online in an afternoon perhaps?

        Where does forced entry come into the definition of burglary?  All one has to do is enter as a tresspasser.

        If some enters as tresspasser with a dishonest intention of removing property then that is burglary.

        • Legal Eagle says:

          No it isn't – what I quoted is the legal definition of burglary. What you are talking about is theft and trespass – two separate offences.

          • Anonymous says:

            No, what you quoted was complete nonsense as far as Cayman is concerned.The legal definition of burglary under the Penal Code is identical to section 9 of the English Theft Act 1968- 

            (1) A person is guilty of burglary if:

              (a)    he enters any building or part of a building as a trespasser and with intent to commit any such offence as is mentioned in subsection (2) below; or
              (b)    having entered any building or part of a building as a trespasser he steals or attempts to steal anything in the building or that part of it or inflicts or attempts to inflict on any person therein any grievous bodily harm.

            (2)   The offences referred to in subsection (1)(a) above are offences of stealing anything in the building or part of a building in question, of inflicting on any person therein any grievous bodily harm or raping any person therein, and of doing unlawful damage to the building or anything therein.

            So….no need for forced entry at all actually, just entry. And you don't actually need to steal anything- an intention to steal is perfectly sufficient. Might want to ask for a refund on that law degree, and maybe spend it on an atlas to establish that Cayman is not part of the USA.

            • Anonymous says:

              You're completely correct in your definition of burglary under the Theft Act 1968, from which the Penal Code law in Cayman is taken.

              I am no lawyer but my profession involves studying and knowing what the British laws are on the subject; we have recently been studying just this very law on burglary.

              To put it in layman's terms, forced entry is not even considered any part of the law on burglary; trespass with the intent to steal from or committ damage to a property is quite sufficient to have committed the crime of burglary.

              People have been convicted of burglary for entering premises where the avenues of entry had been left open through carelessness where a crime of opportunity could be committed.

              Once the premises had been entered without permission or authority with the intent to steal or remove property from that premises, the act of burglary has been committed.

              What makes this particular situation scary is that, by all accounts these two ex-employees of CNN illegally entered these premises with the blessing of the Royal Cayman Islands Police Service, when a legal search application had been denied the Chief Justice of the Cayman Islands by the very same Commissioner of Police, Stuart Kernohan.

              (CNS note: You are muddled here. Kernohan did not apply for a warrant to search the Net News offices. Bridger applied for a warrant to search Kernohan's home, which was refused by the CJ)

              What  seems to have transpired is that this same Commissioner of Police then conspired with others to enter and search these premises outside the legal parameters of a search warrant having been issued and served and conducted by police officers under his command.

              The question to be asked and answered is this; did authorization by the Commissioner of Police for this illegal entry to these premises suddenly make it legal and under which laws did the Commissioner of Police have the right and authority to approve the entry to these premises; it will obviously take higher legal authorities outside of the Cayman to finally answer this outstanding question.

              This makes what happens in places like Cuba pale in comparison to what has happened in Cayman in this instance.

              Why ?

              Because those places don't pretend to be anything less than what they are: non-democratic, authoritarion regimes.

              This situation in Cayman makes the so-called rule of law for a British territory a complete farce.

          • Legal Beagle says:

            With analysis like that your only hope for your clients is that they end up with juries that buy "Sacred Vessel" defences.

    • Anonymous says:

      If you read the British newspapers reporting of this incident, the Financial Times, in particular you will see why John Evans is still involving himself in this affair.

      He is trying to clear his name in Britain, where he is considered nothing less than a criminal who got away with one, by the British press.

      If he pursues his FIO requests through the British human rights system, he might be able to force the FCO and the Governor in Cayman to release the reports that Bridger filed on Operation Tempura.

      Only if those reports are released will anyone know the full story of what really happened or, Kernohan's case goes to trial.


      I can bet any amount of money that his case will not go to trial and will be settled out of court.

      This entire affair began as an attempt to muzzle Cayman Net News editor, Desmond Seales (RIP) and got totally out of hand, as he had been a thorn in the side of officialdom for many years.

      Its definitely not over yet and the cost is rising everyday; who knows what twist will be in the lion's tail next ?

      • Anonymous says:

        please post a link to the article that you're referring to.  there is nothing in what i have read that indicates that mr. evans is somehow considered a criminal.  the only thing "criminal" about this matter is the "coverup" by the british and cayman island govts. 


        • Anonymous says:

          You don't know the laws that operate in Britain in regards to burglary and freedom of the press, then.

          The Financial Time's opening statements on John Evans' entry into the newspaper's offices states that when John Evans entered the offices of CNN the first time, he set off the burglar alarm.

          The laws in Britain says that, at that point, John Evans has already committed the act of burglary…not because the alarm went off but because he had no right or authority to be entering the premises at that time.

          After all, security systems are for the purpose of keeping a premises safe from unauthorised entry by anyone, employees of a business included.

          The newspaper doesn't need to openly call John Evans a criminal; for British readers of the article, we know why the newspaper opened its article with just that very statement.

          That's obviously a bit difficult for you to understand if you don't live in Britain but John Evans does, and he knows and understands British law very well…

          Enough said on the matter.

          • Anonymous says:

            you're very far from the main point here. and most readers in the UK will be inteligent enough to see the bigger picture I am sure.

            he was not entering the premises – whether or not it is technically burgulury or not –  to steal anything for economic gain – but to expose suspected crime.


    • Rorschach says:

      Section 243 of the Penal Code (2010 Revision)  of the Cayman Islands states:

      " Any Person who:

      (a) enters any building or part of a building as a trespasser and with intent to commit any such offence as is mentioned in subsection (2); or
      (b) having entered any building or part of a building as a trespasser steals or attempts to steal anything in the building or that part of it or inflicts or attempts to inflict on any person therein any grievous bodily harm,
      is guilty of the offence of burglary and liable to imprisonment for fourteen years.


      Subsection (2) : The offences referred to in subsection (1)(a) are offences of stealing anything in the building or part of the building in question, of inflicting on any person therein any grievous bodily harm or raping any woman therein, and of doing unlawful damage to the building or anything therein.


      Now if you will take note of the word used in section (a): TRESPASSER, it is this and this alone which negates your claim that there was a "scheme to Burglarize"…Nowhere is it alleged that he entered Mr. Seales office as a trespasser, as I believe, it has been well established that  it was customary and even accepted that employees of the paper, of which Mr. Evans was, would and could enter the office of the late newspaper editor at will..whatever happened..it was most certainly NOT burglary…

      • Anonymous says:

        Dear Lord Jesus, Rorschach, for over 40 years I have been convinced that the famous (infamous) ink blot test you are renowned for coming up with was a load of horse manure (XXXX). Now you are proving your loopiness with this post because even Evans now admits in hindsight that he should not have done it (see another post from him below).

        For the avoidance of doubt (as we lawyers like to say), please do not enter my property telling me you have no "scheme to burglarise". I am ready for you and all others of your persuasion and we wont be discussing the Penal Code as you enter my property.

      • Anonymous says:

        Semantics and splitting hairs on whether the entry of CNN's premises was burglary or illegal trespass…

        John Evans and Lyndon Martin were employees of CNN at the time…

        Their right to entry of the premises was limited to their hours of work and would be limited to the effect that any entry to the premises after working hours be limited to that entry being related to their employment by that business…

        Covert entry at night after working hours for the reasons of searching for and removing documents from their place of empolyment committs any number of criminal offenses, had it been anywhere else other than the Cayman Islands and authorised by the then Commissioner of Police, of all people.

        The security alarm was set off in their first entry and if they had had authority or privilege to enter the premises after working hours they would also have been given the code to disarm the security alarm.

        It took a secong attempt to successfully enter the premises and conduct a futile search for an incriminating documents.

        If this was not an illegal entry, then the laws in the Cayman Islands must be entirely different from any other jurisdiction in the Western world, particularly the United Kingdom.

        If Stuart Kernohan's claims that Governor Stuart Jack and the Attorney General were a part of this plan and approved it BEFORE the entry took place, it means that the legal authoriities in Cayman were complicit in a criminal operation on a massive scale.

        Stuart Jack is not there to defend himself against these claims and the office of the Attorney General is now having to defend itself in a lawsuit that will bring all evidence into an open court, if this lawsuit proceeds.

        The average citizen or business owner in the Cayman Islands can judge for themselves whether a crime was committed if they were put in a position where their home or business place was entered and a search conducted by any other party than police officers with a search warrant signed by a judge.

        If those rules were to be changed because it was the offices of newspaper publisher, Desmond Seales, then any citizen of the Cayman Islands would be at risk of a similar operation being conducted against them.

        This is something that all residents of Cayman need to consider while their taxes are being used to pay off legal settlements that will amount to many millions of dollars more than it has already cost them.

        If this is all OK, in some people's minds, then for others, it makes the Cayman Islands an extremely dangerous place to be living.


        • Rorschach says:

          My Good Man, Lawyers make MILLIONS on semantics and by splitting hairs…wether you agree with my definition or not..the offense of BURGLARY did not occur…

        • Anonymous says:

          In the Cayman Islands, the Police do not have to get a search warrant signed by a judge. It needs merely to be signed by a Justice of the Peace. The RCIPS has a few JP's on hand who can and will sign warrants quickly. The merits of these warrants are not evaluated by a judge.

          I know this personally because I refused to give the Police permission to search my home, and they got a warrant within 10 minutes signed by a JP. And no, I did not have anything illegal in my home and was well aware that there was nothing illegal to find – I refused solely because the officer who made the 'request' was being rude, insulting, offensive and threatening.

          We do not have the same rights as Americans – despite being able to watch re-runs of Law & Order on several cable channels 🙂

    • Anonymous says:

      The rulings of the Chief Justice are very challengeable before the Privy Council of the United Kingdom.

      His rulings are to be totally respected but, with all due respect, are not the final word of law for the Cayman Islands.

      As this case further develops, you might very well see that ruling questioned and challenged, should any elements of this case come before the Privy Council at some later date.

      If Kernohan's case goes to trial, as now seems likely, there will be many more revealed facts than has formerly been put out in the public realm.

      We'll all have to wait and see where this all goes.

      • Anonymous says:

        Any rulings of the CJ must first be appealed to the Court of Appeal before they can be appealed to the Privy Council. It is telling that they were not.  

  9. Anonymous says:

    Let's see if I have this straight. Brit guv'nor and/or Brit FCO appoint Brit dicks (detectives) to come and investigate Cayman corruption. Brit dicks theoretically report to Cayman AG appointed by said Brit guv'nor and/or Brit FCO but do not actualy report to him because his only role is to shovel money to said Brit Dicks. Current Brit police chief appointed by the Brit guv'nor and/or Brit FCO eventully gets suspended with pay at Cayman expense by the Brit guv'nor and/or Brit FCO. His father gets sick so he goes back to Britland to tend to him with Brit gov'nor's permission and Cayman paycheck. Meanwhile Brit guv'nor and/or Brit FCO appoint acting Brit police chiefs at Cayman expense who do who knows what except that it isn't corruption investigation. Also, Brit dicks hire Brit lawyer for advice who isn't qualified to give said advice. Brit dicks, Brit guv'nor and Brit FCO induce private citizens to search office of Cayman newspaper editor for evidence of leaks to Brit appointed police, rather than get a search warrant. Somewhere in there Cayman ranking police officers get suspended with pay by said Brit guv'nor etc. Office search turns up nothing and one of the Cayman ranking officers is reinstated. The other remains in limbo. Then on advice of unqualified Brit lawyer the Brit dicks, with knowlege of Brit guv'nor, induce a credulous Cayman JP to issue a warrant for arrest of judge appointed by Brit gov'nor and/or FCO for a crime that is not actually a crime. Brit guv'nor demands that suspended Brit police chief come back. Brit police chief says can't do it and is fired. When that dust settles, the Brit appointed judge gets $1000000 in settlement paid by Cayman under an arangement urged by visitingBrit judge presiding over case. The situation is such a fiasco that Brit dicks get sent home. No charges against fired Brit police chief and he sues all the Brits he was working for and one of the Brit dicks and the Brit appointed Cayman AG and the CIG, and the only people who may have to pay are the Cayman government and the Cayman AG, according to the latest Brit appointed visiting judge, unless they can prove willful misconduct on the part of the big Brit dick now sunning in California. Can't wait to see how much the latest Brit judge thinks should be paid to make the Brit problems go away.

    • Libertarian says:

      Ah for crying out loud!  Just admit it!  You aresuffering from a rare case of Britz Syndrome!

      It will be interesting to see how much Cayman tax-payers will have to pay for this XXX debucle.

    • Anonymous says:

      Your second last line says it all. It's about big Brit. dicks.

    • John Evans says:

      Nicely summed up 🙂

  10. Caymanian Boat Captain says:

    At the end of the day, Caymanians will get the "end of the stick" for the "screw up's" of the UK members…………… involved in this fiasco. 

  11. Anonymous says:

    Lil Jack with the big cohones!   Former Governor Jack will go down in our history as possibly our smallest in physical stature but certainly not as being afraid of taking tough decisions.  Responding to allegations, he called a Commision of Enquiry against a sitting Cabinet Minister which concluded that Charles Clifford had indeed improperly removed files from government with the purpose of using them to advance a political career. Next he established a Tribunal to hear allegations against Judge Levers which ended with the Privy Council concluding she should be removed from the Court.  Now even in retirement he is battling on, this time with none other than former British Commisioner of Police Kernahan. He seems to have now won that battle also. The present Governor may be tall in stature but so far he has not shown he is willing to make the tough decisions and reign in some of the foolishness going on in this country.

  12. John Evans says:

    I'm very surprised that Stuart Jack has been excluded from the claim.

    My information suggests that he was almost certainly consulted on how the investigation should proceed at a very early stage.

    Three emails, released by the Met in evidence to Southampton County Court in February last year, show that both the FCO and the Governor's Office were fully involved in the investigation at the time both Lyndon Martin and myself conducted searches of the Net News publisher's office.

    The first is to the Commissioner of the Met, Sir Ian Blair, from the Director Overseas Territories, Leigh Turner, dated 30 August 2007, that's three full days before I made my search. It is clear from the contents that Mr Turner had already been briefed on what was going on.

    I also understand that one member of the Governor's staff named in the third email, dated 5 Sepember 2007, is still in post.

    Guess you can't sue someone for simply being incompetent?

    • Anonymous says:

      This entire fiasco is stark proof and consequences of successive Caymanian governments fighting. successfully, since the 1960s to stop Cayman from having to ratify the human rights treaties that Britain, and its territiories, were legally bound to do.

      By the United Kingdom not enforcing these treaties, especially after Britain itself brought the Human Rights Act 1998 into effect, is what has created the conditions in Cayman that has led to this debacle.

      Under the European Court of Human Rights freedom of the press statutes, unless it was circumstances involving national security, any public official or police chief who had authorised private individuals to enter and search a newspaper's premises in Britain would end up before a judge and in jail before they could say 'jack rabbit'.

      The fact that these laws are not totally applicable and enforcable in Cayman is what has led to John Evans and Stuart Kernohan continuing to claim that their plot to enter Cayman Net News's offices was anything less than an illegal break-in that could be justified; in Britain the only justification these two would have faced would have been a visit to one of Her Majesty's correctional institutions, had they had the temerity to break into any newspaper's offices in Britain.

      The resistance against instituting human rights legislation in the Cayman Islands is what has cost Cayman any remaining vestiges of its reputaion through this disgraceful incident and monetary costs somewhere in the tune of CI$ 30 million, when all the cases, including Rudi Dixon and Burman Scott, have been heard and damages awarded.

      The average Caymanian citizen who is paying this bill does not have any real clue as to the serious consequences of their governments continuing to resist human rights legislation and the governments of the UK have been complicit in not legally enforcing those laws across the board, in all its territories, including Cayman so that all British territories would be playing by the same rules.

      At the end of the day, it is still non-Caymanian nationals who will walk away with millions of dollars of Caymanians money for things that the people who work hard in Cayman have no control over.

      This is the real crime, in this entire disgraceful and shameful episode in Cayman's history.

      • John Evans says:

        ROTFLMAO 🙂

        You have no idea what you are talking about.

        • John says:

          Just to avoid any confusion the ROTFLMAO refers to the original 04.33 (RT, isn't that 09.33 UK time?) posting not Legal Eagle's comments.

          • molested cat says:

            Can you stop with the "ROTFL…" stuff and speak proper english. I don't know the hell what you are sayig.

      • Legal Eagle says:

        Sadly, you clearly no nothing about the way law enforcement works in the UK or the law.

        In the past the Senior Investigating Officer of Operation Tempura secured many arrests by 'backdoor' means including the use of the supergrass system and questionable searches. It's the way you catch criminals.

        The only area of human rights legislation that might apply here is Article 8 – Right to respect for private and family life.

        This states that – 'Everyone has the right to respect for his private and family life, his home and his correspondence.'

        But it is a qualified right in that it can be ignored – 'In the interests of national security, public safety or the economic well-being of the country, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals, or for the protection of the rights and freedoms of others.'

        In simple terms, based on the available evidence, the search was entirely justified. 


        • Anonymous says:

          You need to "no" proper English as well as the law. Mr. Evans was not properly authorised to conduct a search on behalf of RCIP. You allude to the "available evidence" but do not say what comprised such "available evidence". How can you say that such a search was "entirely justified" in all the circumstances? If it was entirely justified, why was Lyndon Martin's search, which was presumably based upon the same "available evidence" not deemed to be "entirely justified"? Why was he treated in a completely different manner from Mr. Evans? Does it depend upon the nationality of the searcher?  

        • Anonymous says:

          Legal Eagle

          You 'no' nothing about anything except repeating what you've read on the ECHR laws, probably in Wikipedia; your 'extensive' reading should have at least taught you the difference between 'no' and 'know' and how and when to use those words correctly.

          This 'backdoor' operation is exactly what has created this entire situation and if there had been evidence to conduct this burglary of a newspaper's office, there would have been no need to conduct a search looking for precisely such 'evidence'.

          For your edification, I suggest that you read the European Human Rights law on freedom of the press and freedom of expression.

          You'll find it on Wikipedia as well.

        • Anonymous says:

          Legal Eagle

          If you are the type of lawyer or police officer that your post here indicates, then you and people of your persuasion are exactly the type of people for which human rights laws are there for the protection of the rest of us.

          You've quoted article 8 of the European Covention on Human Rights here, which is the law on Privacy (Article 8) but…

          You miraculously tied in the restrictions that apply to Article 10 Freedom of Expression, which are the exempt circumstances under which Article 10 can be bypassed, subject to review of the courts.

          This is most misleading and deceptive on your part but unaware readers of your post might take your misinformation as fact.

          I advise all readers of your post to look up, for themselves:

          The European Convention on Human Rights:

          Article 8-Privacy

          Article 10-Freedom of Expression

          Your opinions in your post is utter and total, misleading garbage.

    • Anonymous says:

      Suck it up and move on, Mr Evans. You should not have been searching anyone's office in the first place and you would not be involved in this matter.

      • John Evans says:

        Probably true but you know what they say about being wise after the event.

        If everyone just sat back and did nothing what would happen?

        • Anonymous says:

          If everyone just sat back and did nothing what would happen?

           You would have a UDP Gov't led by Mr. Bush.  OH OH, too late……..

          • JC says:

            Submitted by Anonymous (not verified) on Sun, 05/29/2011 – 20:19.

            If everyone just sat back and did nothing what would happen?

            You would have a UDP Gov't led by Mr. Bush.  OH OH, too late……..



            BEST POST EVER!!!!!!

    • Anonymous says:

      "I also understand that one member of the Governor's staff named in the third email, dated 5 Sepember 2007, is still in post."

      Wrong Mr Evans.  Always best to check your facts before shouting your mouth of, dontcha think???

      • Anonymous says:

        So that the rest of us know what is going on, who are you talking about and can either of you prove that this person is or isn't still in post. You may know who you are referring to but a lot of us have no clue.

    • Anonymous says:


      If you have copies of the subject correspondence then please send copie to Cayman Net News for publishing on their website.

      Soldier on old boy!


  13. Anonymous says:

    We are always told that the Governor is responsible for the RCIPS. So please, can someone explain how a Judge can exclude a former governor from a law suit involving the RCIPS and not exclude The CIG, who is not responsible for the RCIPS.