Taylor defends decisions over Operation Tempura

| 02/08/2013

(CNS): The seemingly never-ending saga of the bugled internal police probe, Operation Tempura, is likely to continue dragging on for some time, but the departing governor of the Cayman Islands has defending his part in the costly escapade. Speaking at a final press briefing with the local media on Thursday, Duncan Taylor said he had not “drawn breath” in relation to anything to do with the corruption investigation into the RCIPS without seeking legal advice. He said that his office had continued to fight the release of a report regarding a complaint by Martin Bridger, the senior investigating officer, because he believed it contained defamatory material which could not be published.

Taylor defended his decision to seek a judicial review of the information commissioner’s order to release the details of a complaint in connection with the investigation, because of what are believed to be allegations about senior officials here, most of which are now in the public domain. He said that if the judge finds otherwise, then it will be made public

When he arrived in the Cayman Islands he had said that Operation Tempura was over, he said. “Well it was, but consequential disputes continue,” he added, pointing to the ongoing court cases, including his own with the information commissioner and Bridger’s dispute over documents. The governor also noted the continuing allegations being made about the conduct of some officials, which he said had to be taken seriously and looked at carefully within the law.

“I hope that these outstanding issues will be resolved in the not too distance future,” Taylor added.

Related articles on CNS:




Print Friendly, PDF & Email

Category: Crime

About the Author ()

Comments (11)

Trackback URL | Comments RSS Feed

  1. Anonymous says:

    Respect for the law…and if the law decided to publish, so be it..but beware the outcome…This is the right way to do it…through the courts..not a public slagging match between the protagonists, which achieves absolutely nothing except stir up muddy waters. Maybe thats what they want?

    • Anonymous says:

      What about the people who were defamed in the complaint? Don't they have a right to see the document? If Taylor had at least released the original complaint and the Aina report to all those who were named, as many of us believe he was required to do under the terms of ECHR Article 6, you might have a valid argument but right now we have a situation where serious allegations were made against some very senior figures but the content of those allegations has not been revealed to them. You are right about the Courts deciding this. Martin Bridger should have been hauled before the Grand Court to answer charges of criminal defamation over the contents of the disputed complaint.  

      • Anonymous says:

        If it is not published, those people have not been defamed. Ego is the problem thereafter.

        • One of those involved says:

          Wrong – we were defamed when the complaint was handed to the FCO, when a copy of it was handled by an MP in the UK, when Benjamin Aina conducted his review and when it was leaked to the Financial Times in 2011. The essence of defamation is simply that the false allegations have been made to a third party not that they have been published,

          • Anonymous says:

            All valid points, however most of the public (99.9% at a guess) is no wiser and has no clue as to what was said or done, defamation or not. suggest it might be better to leave it that way.

            • Anonymous says:

              08:58 If you start following that logic then sooner or later the whole system will collapse. In a civilised society there have to be checks and balances, and people have to be held accountable for their actions. Burying them out of sight, as Duncan Taylor has clearly been told to do by the FCO, is not an option.

        • Anonymous says:

          Defamation does not need to involve publication, it merely requires that that statement(s) be false and communicated to a third party other than the person defamed – that's exactly what happened here.

      • Anonymous says:

        Who believes there is an Art 6 right engaged?  Someone who got the Human RIghts Coloring Book for Christmas and is only half way filling in the pages?

    • Anonymous says:

      You can almost guess who the thumbs downers will be, right?