RSSFOI

Taylor files FOI legal appeal

Taylor files FOI legal appeal

| 08/01/2013 | 56 Comments

Gov Taylor addresses (223x300).jpg(CNS): In an ironic twist, the Governor’s Office has become the first public authority to turn to the courts in an effort to overturn a decision by the Cayman Islands Information Commissioner's Office (ICO) and prevent the release of documents into the public domain. Governor Duncan Taylor has filed an appeal for judicial review to reverse a decision by the commisssioner, Jennifer Dilbert, that his office should release a report regarding a complaint made by the former UK cop who headed up the controversial police corruption investigation, Operation Tempura. Dilbert has completed 26 hearings since the law came into force some three years ago but no one has previously challenged any of her decisions in the courts.

In this first appeal to the courts for judicial review, the governor, in an attempt to keep information secret, is requesting a hearing in order to quash Dilbert’s 24th decision, in which she concludes that the report be released. Claiming the commissioner has erred in law in the grounds he presented, Governor Taylor says she jumped to irrelevant and unjustified conclusions about an area of ambiguity in the local freedom of information law and was mistaken with regard to other elements of the legislation which she applied in her decision.

The legal document, which was filed at the eleventh hour following the 45 days the office had to release the documents in connection with the results of Dilbert’s hearing, the governor claims that the commissioner misinterpreted the law regarding potentially defamatory material, which the UK’s representative has claimed as one of the reasons for withholding the document.

The report, which was requested by John Evans, a former reporter with Cayman Net News, which was at the heart of the Operation Tempura investigation, centres on complaints made by Martin Bridger, who headed up the costly controversial investigation. He accused the authorities of cutting short his corruption probe, pointing the finger at the role played by the powers that be and in particular members of the judiciary. The complaint by Bridger was dismissed by the governor and the report requested by Evans outlines the reasons why.

Bridger was given a copy of the report but only on the basis that he kept the document secret, a position that Bridger has maintained, despite wanting the report released. Speaking to CNS Monday, he stated categorically that he would be doing what he could to join the legal action as an interested party defending the commissioner’s decision as he believes the document should be in the public domain.

Aside from attacking Dilbert’s findings regarding the defamatory issues, the governor has also strongly disputed her decision regarding the position of the Governor 's Office that the release of the documents would impact the effective conduct of public affairs. Dilbert found the report would not be damaging, while the governor said she had not considered the need to preserve the independence of the judiciary and the “sensitivity of dealing with complaints against the judiciary”.

It is not yet clear if it will be a judge who grants the judicial review, which is very likely, when the hearing will take place and more importantly if the case would be public given the content of the material that is in dispute. Questions also remain, as a result of the subject matter relating heavily to the local judiciary, as to which judge could hear the case without appearing to be conflicted.

Since Bridger was ejected from Cayman, which he has persistently claimed was before his investigation was complete, the fallout from the internal police and judicial probe has continued to rack up costs for the public purse as the authorities, and in particular the Governor’s Office and the FCO, continue to fight to keep as much of the detail of the discredited enquiry under wraps as possible.

Many questions about the investigation remain unanswered, despite a bill that is now estimated to exceed some $8 million but failed to deliver a singleconviction for corruption.
The fact that Bridger was believed to have his sights not just on Justice Alex Henderson, who was found to have been unlawfully arrested and awarded damages of over $1.2 million following a judicial review, but the chief justice as well has made the investigation particularly sensitive and controversial.

Despite the findings of the senior judiciary over Bridger’s actions, he has always insisted he acted lawfully throughout the investigation based on advice given to him by local legal advisors employed by the Governor’s Office, the Attorney General’s Chambers, as well as that given by Martin Polaine, an independent lawyer and business associate of Bridger who was eventually struck off as an attorney after he was found to have advised the senior former Scotland Yard cop in Cayman despite not being qualified to practice local law.

Many questions about Operation Tempura remain, as do a number of on-going legal cases, including that of former senior police officer Burman Scott, who was arrested under the same conditions as Justice Henderson and is believed to have been offered a compensation payment.

Questions regarding that issue by CNS to the RCIPS remain unanswered. The former deputy commissioner, Rudy Dixon, who was also arrested and charged under the same offence, which was found to be unlawful in the case of Henderson, was eventually tried and found not guilty by a jury and later given a payoff to depart the RCIPS.

Meanwhile, Stuart Kernohan, the police commissioner at the time of Operation Tempura, continues to pursue a wrongful dismissal claim against the Cayman government over the way he was treated after his suspension from duty because of his association with an alleged unlawful entry into the Net News offices.

Kernohan was suspended over a decision he made to allow employees of the newspaper, including Evans, to hunt for evidence of alleged corruption between the owner, the late Desmond Seales, and Deputy Police Commissioner Anthony Ennis, even though the former top cop had revealed the plans to both the governor at the time, Stuart Jack, and the regional security advisor, Larry Covington.

Although those corruption claims were dismissed very early in the Tempura investigation, Bridger continued to probe and claimed to have discovered other corruption issues relating to the police and the judiciary. While some officers are believed to have resigned or been dismissed as a result of that probe, no details, with the exception of the failed case against Dixon, have ever been revealed to the public, despite the fact that the Cayman tax payer has footed the bill for the entire fiasco. 

The release of the documents currently in question and the continued legal fights that the attorney general is pursuing against Bridger to prevent him using other documents in his own legal battles are believed to boil down to an FCO’s desire to avoid embarrassment about the bungled investigation.

Continue Reading

Port documents now available for review on CNS

Port documents now available for review on CNS

| 07/01/2013 | 9 Comments

6a00d8345410a269e2017c31798c27970b-800wi.jpg(CNS): The bulk of a bundle of documents regarding the cruise berthing negotiations and the termination of talks with GLF Construction have now been posted on the CNS website, thanks to the assistance of a reader. The documents, which were revealed to Cayman News Service following a yearlong freedom of information request to the Port Authority, include a copy of the settlement agreement between government and GLF, in which GLF was paid some US$2.5 million in compensation from the public purse. The records also include various minutes of meetings, correspondence between the former premier and the developer and emails between government officials and lawyers.

For ease of reference, the records have been broken down into seven separate documents, in chronological order with the oldest correspondence in the first document. This includes the letters from GLF stating that the firm was ready to move ahead with the project just before then premier McKeeva Bush terminated the framework agreement. The final seventh document contains a copy of the full settlement agreement.

Related article: 

FOI hung on GLF payment

See the released documents below.

Continue Reading

FOI hung on GLF payment

FOI hung on GLF payment

| 03/01/2013 | 62 Comments

(CNS): Documents that took almost one year to be released by the Port Authority reveal that keeping records relating to the termination of talks with GLF Construction over cruise berthing facilities under wraps formed part of the settlement agreement. According to the agreement, which has now been released by the authority, clause 6 required GLF to withdraw an FOI request for all the government notes, documents and minutes of meetings relating to the project and GLF made by the firm’s solicitors. A binder of information which was released to CNS last month shows the $2.5 million settlement paid for from the public purse was directly related to the former premier’s decision to terminate the talks.

Following the withdrawal of GLF’s freedom of information request in January last year, CNS immediately requested the same and additional information, which triggered what turned out to be the longest battle CNS has undertaken so far to gain access to any records. These records cover elements of the controversial termination of the negotiations between government and GLF construction regarding the cruise berthing project in George Town.

Since May of 2011, documents relating to the port project, which government authorities have been keen to keep secret, have gradually leaked into the public domain, but the latest batch of information which was finally released by the Port Authority last month shows just how keen the Cayman government and the authority was to keep the information away from the public eye.

Having placed clause 6 within the deal in which government agreed to pay GLF the $2.5 million to settle outside of court, it comes as no surprise that the authority then spent the last twelve months fighting not to release records relating to the entire fallout of the former premier’s decision.

The documents show that after McKeeva Bush’s move to terminate the framework agreement with GLF, the port and the Cayman government, the board members believed this was a breach of contract and had significant concerns about their own culpability in GLF’s claim. The minutes from the meetings also record that during one board meeting in June at which then premier Bush was present, the members apparently unanimously backed his decision to negotiate with China Harbour Engineering Company over the cruise project, only to change their minds at the next meeting, where he was not present, when they voted to return to talks with GLF.

The binder, which contains over 250 documents including emails, minutes of meetings and the settlement agreement, makes it clear that the settlement with GLF was as a direct result of Bush’s move in April 2011 to stop the GLF talks and move towards an agreement with CHEC. Bush then spent a further 18 months talking with the Chinese until those discussions were also terminated by the former premier following pressure from the UK over the need to follow international best procurement practices.

The records revealed to CNS contain just two emails between Bush and GLF’s solicitors, in which the premier makes allegations against the company over leaked documents and warns the lawyers that he would not be threatened or pushed into returning to talks with GLF and that the Cayman government was willing to defend its position.

The documents also show that the director of the Port Authority, Paul Hurlston, appears to have been kept completely out of the loop during the entire process. In correspondence with the premier’s chief of staff, Leonard Dilbert, Hurlston notes that he was “not privy to any discussions that may have taken place leading up to the ultimate termination of GLF”, and the director writes that he was “in the dark” on the whole matter.

The released records track the developments regarding GLF from the point they were selected by the board following the breakdown of talks with DECCO, the company owned by Dart which was the first choice of the board.

The documents include reports, progress updates and the work undertaken by GLF, their request to move to a full agreement and then the sudden termination by the premier. They also record the concerns of the board about that decision, as well as the premier’s decision to remove some board members, while others stepped down. It shows when government began negotiations with GLF to make a financial settlement to avert court action and the continued struggle to try and stop documents being released, as well as the actual final settlement agreement.

However, the records reveal very little new insight into the premier’s decision to terminate the GLF talks and move to negotiations with China Harbour. While the decision cost the public $2.5 million, the motivation for the move remains elusive. While the premier claimed that GLF failed to demonstrate it had the financial ability to progress with the project, the documents reveal another story.

See ICO decision on the release of the documents below:

CNS would like to thank everyone who responded to our appeal for help and offer special thanks to the person now assisting with the scanning. We hope to be able to post the released documents next week.

 

Continue Reading

Mac visited 34 nations

Mac visited 34 nations

| 27/12/2012 | 97 Comments

travel-guide-where-to-go.jpg(CNS): After he took office in May 2009 the former premier of the Cayman Islands visited at least 34 nations across the world, spending more than 403 days on business and a further 142 days of personal time away from Cayman — almost one third of the time he served as leader. Criticised for the amount of money and time spent off island, a partially granted FOI request by CNS to the premier ’s office revealed that McKeeva Bush took some 74 overseas trips as premier, from Greenland in the frozen North to Indonesia in the Far East. Venice, Paris, New York, Dubai and Shanghai are just some of the destinations he visited before he was ousted from office by his former colleagues on 18 December.

With more than a dozen trips to London, Miami and Jamaica, the premier’s overseas travel included major international meetings as well as “go sees” related to possible investments, many of which did not materialize, or trips to sign international tax exchange treaties. Dozens of different staff members accompanied Bush on the various trips at different times, some of which took the former premier away for as much as three and a half weeks.

Although the response to the freedom of information request, which came more than 75 days after it was submitted and following several breaches of the freedom of information law, the request was not complete. CNS had also asked for the costs of the trips but that part of the request was denied as the office stated that the credit card bills and receipts have been seized by the police and now form part of the enquiry. It appears that the office has no other way of knowing how much the numerous, and often lengthy, trips involving several staff members have cost the public purse.

CNS has requested an internal review, and although the ministry has not yet acknowledged that request, we intend to press the matter further in order to establish how much tax payers money was spent on international travel and to allow the people to decide if they got value for money.

During his time as premier Bush vigorously defended all of his overseas trips stating that they were all related to important business, promoting Cayman, addressing its position with the OECD, attracting investment or dealing with public finances among other issues.

See details released under the FOI request below.

Alert CNS readers have found more trips not mentioned in the FOI response:

Panama party cost $70k (CNS 6 July 2012) about trip at the end of May

‘We must move on port’ Bush says during Roatan trip (CNS 14 March 2012)

Minister calls Mac to London (CNS 12 November 2011)

Continue Reading

Port finally releases withheld documents as ordered

Port finally releases withheld documents as ordered

| 13/12/2012 | 9 Comments

port office.JPG(CNS): Almost one year after CNS submitted a freedom of information (FOI) request regarding the negotiations with the former proposed cruise port developer, GLF, to develop the cruise berthing facilities in George Town, the Port Authority has finally released all of the records in accordance with the findings of the information commissioner’s October decision. On Monday, 10 December the Port Authority’s legal counsel informed the Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO) that their client would not seek a judicial review, one day after the 45 days the authority was given to release the information, delivering the documents to the commissioner’s office at 5pm.

The ICO checked that all of the records were present and passed the binder containing hundreds of documents to CNS.

The records include minutes from the board meeting in which members began to realize their vulnerability to legal action following the decision by the premier to abandon talks with GLF and switchto negotiations with China Harbour Engineering Company, and details of the final US$2.5 million settlement paid for by the Cayman taxpayer.

The documents also include correspondence from the premier in response to GLF’s threats of legal action and show that the withdrawal of GLF's original FOI request at the beginning of this year, which triggered the CNS request, was part of the settlement agreement between the port, government and GLF.

CNS will be examining the documents in detail over the coming days and will reveal their contents to readers as soon as possible.

Continue Reading

Consultants cost $2.2M

Consultants cost $2.2M

| 10/12/2012 | 7 Comments

executives_money.jpg(CNS): The finance ministry spent more than CI$2.2 million of public money on consultants in the period from November 2009 to September 2011, according to the response to an FOI request made by a CNS reader. The applicant requested information on consultant and travel costs in the premier’s ministry. Although the response refers only to the financial part of McKeeva Bush’s areas of responsibility, it reveals that the Financial Services Secretariat alone spent more than $2 million on expert advice and around $175,000 was spent by the UK office, the Financial Services Administration and the Department of Commerce.  It also shows that the financial departments in the ministry spent over $500k during the same period on travel.

The request does not detail who the consultants were or what they were advising on but it is understood that the majority of the sum represents the contract government has with Sidley Austin, a legal firm that lobbies on behalf of the Cayman Islands Government on the political scene and in the corridors of power in both the United States and Europe.

The section referring to travel does not offer any details about who was traveling, where they went or for what reason but it indicates that between November 2009 and September 2011 the General Registry, the Department of Commerce and Investment, the Tax Information Authority, the Financial Services Secretariat, the UK office and the Financial Services Administration racked up a travel bill of more than half a million dollars. The largest sum was over $277,000, which was spent by the Financial Services Secretariat.

The request also shows that during the same period the ministry spent just $17,000 on its overseas connections via the Department of Commerce in its Hong Kong office, while it spent some $135,000 on the London office.

CNS is still waiting on the results of an FOI request, which it made to the premier’s ministry on 5 October. Although the response is more than two months late and the Information Commissioner’s Office has now intervened, the ministry has still not been able to answer the CNS request, which asked where the premier had travelled to on official business over the twelve months to October of this year, with whom, why and how much it has cost the public purse. 

The public recently made its concerns abundantly clear on the CNS comments board regarding the CI$213,000 spent on official travel by the deputy premier since she was elected to office. A story based on an FOI request that revealed the details and costs of Juliana O’Connor Connolly’s travel since June 2009 generated well over 90 comments, very few of whichwere supportive.

The revelations that the fnance ministry alone racked up more than twice that amount in just two years suggests that once the cost of the premier’s travel on behalf of his tourism portfolio is added to trips made in his role of premier, the bill will be quite significant.

Related articles on CNS:

DP racks up 200k travel bill

No sign of Mac travel FOI

Seedetails of the freedom of information request below.

Continue Reading

No sign of Mac travel FOI

No sign of Mac travel FOI

| 07/12/2012 | 63 Comments

frequent-flier.jpg(CNS): More than two months after CNS submitted a freedom of information request for the details and costs of the premier’s overseas trips for the last 12 months, there is still no sign of the information and the ministry has shown a blatant disregard for the Freedom of Information Law. The request was submitted on 5 October but the ministry has completely ignored due process by missing the 30 day deadline and did not request an extension until some three weeks after the statutory time limit had passed. The information manager (IM) then missed the 30 day extension and has now stated that the ministry cannot supply the details until 21 December.

It is not clear why the premier’s ministry of finance, tourism and development, which has three IMs, is having such a problem finding out where the premier has been, with whom, why and what he spent on travel over the last twelve months, but in her request on Thursday for even more time, Judy Powery, one the information managers, pointed to the accounts department as the place where things were being held up.

In a response to yet another email from CNS asking what had happened to the request she wrote:

“I had the opportunity to discuss this matter yesterday with our accounts department  and they are about 75% completed, however, due to the in-depth details you are requesting they require more time to break-down the costs into the various categories. In light of this, I would appreciate if you could agree to an additional two weeks which would allow us sufficient time to fully complete the request,” Powery stated, adding that she hoped to have the information to CNS by 21 December.

Given the date of the original request, even if the ministry was able to meet its own new deadline, which CNS has not accepted, that would be a whopping 77 days compared to the 30 set out in the law.

In the same week CNS also made a request to the deputy premier’s ministry for similar information and the IM there was able to supply details of their minister’s trips, for the entire three years of the UDP administration, within 41 days. The IM had requested theextra time before the original deadline had passed and was able to supply the information in full.

As the premier’s ministry has completely ignored the law, and with no guarantees that officials will be able to supply this information before Christmas, CNS has now asked the ICO to step in and formally deal with the request.

The premier’s trips abroad have become of significant public interest and the ICO has indicated to all information managers that this is the kind of information that is likely to be regularly requested regarding all government officials, so it should be properly recorded, making it easy to respond to the requests.

However, it appears that no one is properly collating the details of the premier’s whereabouts and why. As a result, the ministry is having to track back through the year to check the numerous trips that McKeeva Bush has taken around the world, why he went, who he went with and how much the travel cost the public purse.

According to the response on the FOI request from the deputy premier’s ministry, Juliana O’Connor Connolly spent more than CI$213,000 on travelling over the three years since she took office. Sources have told CNS that the premier has spent much more than that this year alone. But with no sign of the response to the CNS freedom of information request, speculation that Bush has spent a record sum on overseas trips this year cannot be confirmed.

Related article:

DP racks up 200k travel bill

Continue Reading

IC protects audit office’s need for confidentiality

IC protects audit office’s need for confidentiality

| 29/11/2012 | 0 Comments

swarbrick (243x300).jpg(CNS): The information commissioner has pointed to the need for the auditor general to be able to assure people that sensitive information they give to him will remain confidential so that he can properly conduct the affairs of his office. In her 26th ruling and her second decision relating to an FOI request regarding the RCIPS internal enquiry, Operation Tempura, Jennifer Dilbert sided with the public authority on this occasion and upheld the partial denial of information. However, while the commissioner pointed to the need to protect free and frank discussion and to prevent prejudice against the audit office, she pointed out, not for the first time, an incorrect application of the legal privilege exemption.

Setting out the background of the hearing, Dilbert said it related to an FOI request about the controversial Operation Tempura police corruption investigation made to the governor’s office and transferred to the Office of the Auditor General, since it related to the report that the OAG conducted into the expenses and spending on the costly enquiry.

The request was for correspondence or any other written records relating to theproduction of the OAG’s report into Operation Tempura from any official who was involved, or attempted to be involved, in the format and contents of the final report.

The OAG’s information manager provided access to 31 documents but some information was redacted based on exemptions under the FOI Law relating to legal privilege, free and frank exchange and the potential prejudice of the effective conduct of public affairs.

The applicant requested an Internal Review, and while the auditor general upheld the majority of the IM’s decisions, he made some limited changes to two of the redacted documents and released a third in full. However, the applicant appealed to the Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO) for a review of the decision to deny full access to the records.

Although the commissioner upheld the auditor’s decision, she pointed out in her ruling that the use of legal privilege in connection with one of the exemptions was wrong. The OAG applied the exemption found in 17(a) to the contents of an email from George McCarthy, who was chief secretary at the time, to Attorney General Sam Bulgin.

Pointing to her comments about the use of this exemption in other hearings, she said that the content of the email was not seeking, formulating or giving of legal advice. Dilbert also found that it had not been demonstrated that litigation privilege was attached to the records.

“I am not convinced that they were created for the dominant purpose of preparing for, advising on, or conducting litigation that is either underway, or was a reasonable prospect at the timethe records were created.”

Nevertheless, the commissioner did find that other exemptions applied and she agreed with the auditor general’s redactions.

In connection with another document, Dilbert pointed out that because a memo from the solicitor general to the auditor general was labelled “confidential and privileged” did not mean to say it was.

"Simply marking a document ‘Confidential and Privileged’ does not mean that legal professional privilege automatically attaches to it,” she said. However, as the redacted part of the memo offered legal advice, professional privilege did attach to that exemption.

Dilbert upheld several other redactions as she agreed with the auditor general’s position that the release of some information could “jeopardize his office’s future operations” and the need for “free and frank discussions” in order for his staff to get the information they need to conduct an audit. The office contended that individuals will not communicate with it in an open manner if they believe the information communicated would become public.

“The FOI Law must … protect the Auditor General’s ability to conduct investigations and obtain the free and frank testimony of relevant public servants, even where this may deny the general public access to the ensuing records via the Office of the Auditor General,” Dilbert found.

The commissioner added in her decision that, given the role of the auditor general, it would not be in the public interest to disclose records that could prejudice the affairs of his office.

“In this case the public interest in allowing the Auditor General to conduct his affairs unhindered outweighs any public interest in the disclosure of the redacted information,” she stated before upholding all of the redactions made.

See the commissioner’s 26th decision here.

See related story here.

Continue Reading

Reluctance over FOI eroding says info boss

Reluctance over FOI eroding says info boss

| 29/11/2012 | 0 Comments

(CNS): Traditional resistance by government employees in the Cayman Islands over releasing information to the public to divulging information is “slowly eroding,” the information commissioner told a group of accountants recently. Jennifer Dilbert said that information managers were becoming more comfortable providing information to the public under the freedom of information law during a presentation to the bean counters organised by her office as part of the information commissioner’s outreach. There have been over 2,500 FOI requests made to public authorities since the inception of her office in January 2009.

Dilbert provided a brief introduction to the Freedom of Information initiative at Government Finance Professional Development Week, at a conference for public and private sector professional accountants and students.

Outlining the exclusions and exemptions that are allowed in the Freedom of Information Law, including strategic intelligence gathering by security services she noted that in general everyone has the right to most of the information that government gathers and maintains, and the resistance of personnel to divulging information about government was slowly eroding.

Recent statistics from the ICO have revealed that while there is considerable improvement in releasing information a worrying trend by the office is the length of time that it takes authorities to release information and the lengths a limited number of government officials are going to with the introduction of lawyers to stop information being released.
 

Continue Reading

Info boss strikes blow for transparency

Info boss strikes blow for transparency

| 26/11/2012 | 14 Comments

_1136210_secrecy300.jpg(CNS): In an exceptionally well researched ruling, the information commissioner has struck a welcome blow for transparency and openness in government and against secrecy. In her latest ruling Jennifer Dilbert has stated that the governor’s office must release documents requested by a witness in the police corruption investigation Operation Tempura that cost the country millions of dollars. The request relates to a complaint filed by the lead investigating officer on the controversial case, Martin Bridger, who claimed the enquiry was shut down early by the authorities. A report by Benjamin Aina, QC, was conducted into the complaint, which was dismissed, but the report was only released to Bridger and has been kept under wraps ever since.

John Evans, a former reporter for Cayman Net News who was closely associated with the discredited investigation, made an FOI request for the report both in the UK and here in the Cayman Islands and was declined on both occasions on a number of grounds, not least because the report was said to contain defamatory material.

In her research Dilbert explored the issue of defamatory material in requests and concluded that very few countries have this exemption in their laws, which led the commissioner to conclude that "the imposition of a categorical ban on the disclosure of any defamatory matter, as section 54(1) appears to do, is contrary to international best practice. 

Going back to the research of the Freedom of Information Working Group, which was tasked with advising Cabinet on the drafting of the FOI Bill, she found the paper accepted by government made no reference to defamation. She said that, in accordance with other sections in the law, records containing defamatory matter can be released and the law provides for protections in relation to such releases, which contradicts the provision in the subsection which appears to ban such disclosure unconditionally.

“If section 54(1) was applied as written, it would have the effect of prohibiting the disclosure by public authorities of any 'defamatory matter' under the FOI Law. This would include any materials that could be construed as being critical of government, of decisions of public authorities, or of actions of public officers,” Dilbert writes in her report.

“I consider this contrary to the objects of the FOI Law itself, as governmental accountability and transparency, free public discourse and public participation in national decision-making, which are defined as fundamental principles of the system of constitutional democracy in the section above, cannot take place under conditions where the general public does not have the right to express and impart information that is critical of government.”

The commissioner also points to the Bill of Rights and the fundamental right to freedom of expression.

“I consider that the categorical ban on the disclosure of defamatory matter in subsection 54(1) of the FOI Law is not reasonably justifiable in a democratic society, and I am convinced that it significantly and disproportionately undermines the public’s Fundamental Right to Free Expression guaranteed under paragraph 11,” she writes.

Citing the constitution and various examples of case law, the commissioner goes on to dismiss all of the claims by the governor’s office over why the report should remain secret and even suggests the report’s circulation in public may answer some of the many questions that remain about the entire episode.

“I do not lend much credence to the claim that its disclosure would, or would be likely to harm the public offices concerned. The Tempura and Cealt investigations have been discussed in the public forum for several years now, and it is my opinion that further credible information on the matter would help to clarify many outstanding questions, “ Dilbert writes in the ruling.

Dilbert also makes an important point in her ruling about the blanket use of court proceedings as a way not to release documents. She states that it is not enough to just raise the fact that a matter may form part of a legal action not to release records and that the authority should expand on arguments to this effect. In this case, she said, no further evidence as to how the release of the response records would prejudice the effective conduct of the court’s affairs was provided.

As a result, Dilbert has given the governor’s office 45 days to either apply to the courts for judicial review appeal or release the report, which may address the mounting conspiracy theories about Operation Tempura and what exactly the special police investigation team were doing and what, if anything, they ever uncovered.

See full report below.

Continue Reading