Ex drug cop sues RCIPS

| 08/05/2012

(CNS): An officer who was once a member of the drugs task force and involved in undercover operations overseas is suing the commissioner of police over the way he was treated in the wake of assisting in a major drug bust. The officer, who served in the RCIPS since 1994, is making a damages claim against the police management as a result of suffering post-traumatic stress when his identity was revealed in a major case. Although placed in a protection scheme, the officer received death threats and says he was not properly protected, supported or trained to deal with the consequences of his exposure to the criminal gangs involved in drug trafficking.

The officer was employed with the police until May last year, when he was officially pensioned off as a result of his mental health issues. However, before his retirement during the course of his career the plaintiff participated in several major undercover operations resulting in the interdiction of a substantial quantity of narcotics.

Following one successful drugs operation he was required to give evidence in contested extradition proceedings in a foreign jurisdiction. His identity was revealed in the proceedings, resulting in the threats to his and his family's lives by individuals involved in serious crime and in particular the target of the legal proceedings.

As a result, in April 2005 he sought help from the then commissioner of police for protection for himself and his family. They were then placed in what the officer described as an ad hoc witness protection scheme in May overseas and what the officer describes as an enforced exile from his home.

The law suit filed in the Cayman Islands Grand court last week states that the officer was in “circumstances of tremendous stress and mental anguish” but “negligently, in breach of contract and in breach of his duty of mutual trust and confidence” the commissioner failed to provide him with the “support, care and protection consistent with international standards for the protection of exposed witnesses or officers,” the suit claims.

As a result, the officer sayshe has sustained severe psychiatric injury including, but not limited to, post-traumatic stress syndrome and has a number of medical reports substantiating his claim for financial recompense.

On 16 December 2010, under the Public Service Pensions Law a statutory Board found that he was "medically unfit" to carry out the job of responsibilities associated with his duty as an employee of the RCIP.  That board concluded that his persistent medical condition was "a direct result of the hazards of his occupation” which led to him being pensioned off from the service.

The former drug cop states that his psychiatric injuries including his post-traumatic stress disorder were caused by the RCIPS’ negligence and breach of contract. He claims that because he was neither trained nor given the minimum safeguards, despite being owed a duty not to be exposed to working conditions which were foreseeably likely to subject him to such stress, he is seeking financial compensation.

The suit claims the defendant owed a duty not to expose the plaintiff to living conditions which were likely to subject him to such stress or illness taking into account any susceptibility of the plaintiff of which the defendantwas, or should have been, aware.

On top of damages relating to his psychiatric condition, the officer is also seeking special damages for the loss of his home in Grand Cayman because of his circumstances.

The officer revealed to CNS that he has been engaged in negotiations with the RCIPS over his situation for some seven years. He said that during this time various government officials and commissioners have promised to address his problems but the officer says no one wants to want to take responsibility for what has happened to him and as a result he is now taking direct legal action.

Print Friendly, PDF & Email

Category: Crime

About the Author ()

Comments (4)

Trackback URL | Comments RSS Feed

  1. Anonymous says:

    I know this officer very well (an honest and hard working detective) but unfortunately, this is what happens XXX. Personally, I hope his lawsuit is successful and that it drains a minimum of 15% of the annual police budget.


  2. Anonymous says:

    Let’s see what happens?

  3. Anonymous says:

    I wish you all the best, you deserve the best for all that you have done. The public really needs to know what we have done and continue to do in order to protect or country.

    We all took that oath to Protect and Serve Country and Queen when we “Passed Out” and we’ve never broken it, but we are easily thrown to the side and replaced.

    “Good people sleep at night because there are men who are willing to do evil on their behalf…”

    Your Brother in Arms

    Formally 279

  4. Anonymous says:

    I hope this gentleman is treated fairly and will receive more than Justice Henderson did. This situation has caused far more distress. Unfortunately, I am not optimistic. Is there any one who can help?