Police staffer admits guilt
(CNS): The first person to be charged and convicted with offences under the Cayman Islands Anti-corruption Law pleaded guilty Tuesday to several counts relating to the misuse of information. Despite constant speculation in the community about corruption in high office, the first person to fall foul of the legislation was a long way from the top of government hierarchy. Patricia Webster is a 31-year-old RCIPS civilian staffer who was accused of giving out a phone number of a victim and attempted to find information from the police data base on behalf of a friend. Webster admitted the offences and averted the need for a trial at the eleventh hour following a closed door legal hearing.
Webster pleaded guilty to two counts of misconduct in a public office contrary to section 17 of the Anti-corruption Law 2008 when she appeared in Grand Court this week. Following the guilty pleas, she was bailed to return to Grand Court in May, when it is anticipated that she will be given a suspended sentence.
The charges followed an investigation by the RCIPS’ own Anti-corruption Unit in 2011 after allegations were made against Webster of misusing the police data systems. Following charges laid by police in October 2011, she was placed on required leave by the police on full pay and a spokesperson confirmed that Webster remains on suspension.
In a statement released on Wednesday the anti-corruption commission said that Webster had made extensive searches of the confidential police database and solicited information from the immigration database to find out if an individual was the subject of a criminal investigation and to get the personal telephone number of another person which she passed a third party.
“The Anti-Corruption Commission and the Royal Cayman Islands Police Service will continue to receive and vigorously investigate allegations related to misconduct in public office and other related offences” said David Baines, Commissioner of Police and Chairman of the Anti-Corruption Commission.
For information on the Anti-Corruption Commission go to www.anticorruptioncommission.ky or call 244-3687 or for confidential reporting call 928-1747.
Category: Crime
Another sacrificial lamb….babylon be still!
This is a very serious offense. The identies and contact details of witnesses should never be compromised. A custodial sentence should be required to deter other employees from doing this.
OK they caught one little fry. Now go after the big fish please.
Please do mop up all the little fry and sort them out. Their constant illegal conduct is a drain.
Rumour has it she is going to be appointed as the next head of the ERA.
This woman was doing no worse than half the government payroll. Her real crime was not having any friends or relatives higher up the food chain who coulld help her out. I would love to see the Anti-Corruption Unit do some serious work.
Sounds like such a simple offense, eh? But there are lots of civil servants ever day doing favors like this for their friends, especially those in customs, immigration and vehicle licensing. Civil service: take heed.
One year and 4 months on full pay? Fair enough, but guilty now so it is time for the RCIP to terminate and wish her well as a security guard. We need to trust our police full-stop.
This 31 year old epitomizes the prime example of "Do what I want "instead of "Do what is right." She should also be made to tell her sorry story to every school child as a warning to walk the straight and narrow path and that breaking the rules or taking advantage of your situation is never right.
She’s the first, more to come.
No actually full pay is not fair enough.
RCIPS have two roles in this – as employer and as law enforcer. As law enforcer there is apresumption of inocnece until proven guitly. The burden of proof in that regard is much higher than the burden of proof of gross misconduct as an employer.
The police had enough evidence to satisfy themselves as law enforcers to lay charges 16 months ago. It would be extremely unusual if that was not enough evidence to support an employers assessment of gross misconduct which would have been grounds for summary dismissal which she could always have appealed (given that she now admits the charges she clearly would not have appealed). ANY other employe would have dismissed her at the time.
So…… no it is not alright that she has been sitting at home on full pay when she should have been dismissed 16 monthsago
Can't say that she does not deserve it – she could probably use some jail time too…
And you're not going to get a guilty plea from someone high up- trust me
This is a very serious offence. I am surprised that a prison sentence is unlikely.
What about the Stan Thomas "smoking gun" letter? That's the real type of thing that should be investigated.