September 10, 2007

ARE the Bermuda police officers who are assigned to investigate the recent spate of gun-related murders equipped with the knowledge to solve these crimes, especially those involving firearms? Upon examining the crime scene, do they have any clue as to where to begin the investigation?

More training is definitely required of the police officers; however, I would imagine that it would be more economical to recruit specialised officers from overseas to provide the initial training to the officers as opposed to sending groups of officers overseas to be trained?

When we have officers with minimum experience assigned to specialized areas within five years of joining the Bermuda Police Service, how much have they honestly learned in that space of time?

The turn over rate is so great that we risk having rookies training new recruits and passing on their limited knowledge, as is the case in Her Majesty's Customs as well.

These areas both play crucial roles in law enforcement yet the standards are constantly being lowered. We're simultaneously hearing the Minister of Finance, whose Ministry is responsible for HM Customs, tell us to "get mad as hell" when she, being the Minister in charge of the department, is ultimately responsible for the crisis. So should we be "mad as hell" at her?

For instance, how can someone with no Customs experience be assigned to oversee Customs operations at the airport when they are learning themselves?

When I returned from my summer vacation, I saw nothing but new faces operating the Immigration desks at the airport and I would assume they were all fairly new recruits.

Let's be proactive - should a terrorist attack happen in Bermuda, who would be ultimately responsible for allowing terrorists to enter Bermuda? It would have to be the Ministers in charge of recruiting staff to protect our borders?

The Police and Customs Departments are so busy creating Memorandums of Understanding (MOU) and filling high paying positions with unqualified individuals, which may explain why we are left with unsolved murders and a level of incompetence with no accountability?

What kind of Police service do we have? Is it one that upholds the fundamental rights of all humans and one that gives everybody recourse to the law, even the people who can't afford it, so that the people of Bermuda can have some justice. Or are we faced with too many back door deals which spell "corruption"?

How can we trust a system that relies on officers to investigate one another? A system which has seen many officers charged with criminal activity, but few guilty verdicts (or even prosecutions) in these instances. One may argue that the police have no control over a judge's decision; however, their fellow officers do have control of the strength of the investigation and case prepared for the Court as do lawyers who represent clients.

If we conducted a review of individual cases and took note of patterns, i.e. legal representation or particular judges assigned to certain cases, we would most likely find similarities in the outcomes. Is it because of corrupt practices? We would hate to think so.

The main perpetrators of unlawful acts on this island may appear to be the police themselves.

They arrest ordinary people accused of a host of different crimes, however, often fail to arrest, investigate or successfully try their own suspect officers in addition to Government officials.

Who do they answer to directly? One would say the Governor because they are public servants - yes, the Commissioner of Police answers to the Governor but the Police Officers answer to the Commissioner.

The problems begin when investigating officers "turn a blind eye" to a matter and from that point it's a domino effect - the corruption begins and the cycle continues. So does it come as a surprise when suspect police officers who are investigated and tried are hardly found "guilty"? Who polices the police?

It's really no different than the legal fraternity - there's a Bar Association which comprises of lawyers who are responsible for investigating other lawyers. How often do we see lawyers disbarred for unethical conduct?

I approached a few law firms when I was seeking to change attorneys after being excessively charged for what I considered unnecessary services.

I couldn't even trust that the lawyer was working in my best interest especially after receiving the bill - just under $20,000.00 for an interim injunction which didn't serve its purpose at all.

One law firm refused to represent me with no explanation only to say it was a conflict of interest after learning the matter involved the actions of a senior lawyer who was giving instruction to the respondents in my case; the same lawyer who was quoted as saying, "if we think it, we can do it".

Her mindset and the erroneous information that she submitted to a Government agency on behalf of her clients has cost me thousands of dollars with no resolution in sight.

In her "What If?" tribute in memory of her beloved friend Dame Lois Browne Evans, she spoke about politicians when in my opinion the word "politicians" should have been substituted with the word "lawyers". It should have read "What if all the lawyers decided that for at least one week they would truly represent their clients' best interests and put aside all the legal rhetoric, who knows? This could turn into an annual 'No B.S. week'." Then she herself might cut the B.S. and encourage her fellow lawyers to focus on the "No fees week" she also spoke of.

I guess it will take a few more QC's from the UK to embarrass a few more local lawyers. Perhaps we should consider complaining to UK Bar Association rather than wasting time complaining to the Bar Association in Bermuda, especially if it operates the same as the Ombudsman for Bermuda, the Police Complaints Authority and the Human Rights Commission, which in my view are all a waste of time and money.

Lawyers who deliberately procrastinate and not respond to correspondence in a timely fashion and who are not looking out for the client's best interest should be penalised where the client benefits from the delay.

Every incorrect draft which obviously has not been proofread by the secretary, should also amount to a deduction from the bill.

The Chief Justice spoke of a time frame for dealing with cases, however, the fastest cases I've seen handled in a timely fashion were the Tamerry Appeal and Bermuda Housing Corporation gag order cases. Why doesn't that happen with every case?

Of course, not every lawyer engages in unethical conduct and I thank those lawyers for not losing their "integrity".

If those investigating a case, after hearing a complaint, compared the policies and procedures with the complaint, then legal action would not be required half the time.

It's when someone decides to "cover-up" for someone else that the real problems begin and that's why they remain unresolved for so long. It's better to confront the truth than to cover up wrong doing, and so says the Anglican Book of Common Prayer which states, "Constantly speak the truth, boldly rebuke vice, and patiently suffer for the truth's sake".

Tim Marshall made a few good points in a Royal Gazette article on July 27, 2007 when he stated that if elected, he would push for laws and practices which would make all politicians and ministers accountable. He should also push to protect individuals including lawyers who bring the corrupt or unethical practices of other lawyers to light, which may lead to clients being better served.

As long as we condone the unethical conduct, whether it is of politicians, ministers, police, lawyers, customs officers, or heads of departments, we will have little or no success in combating the rising crime involving firearms and other weapons, which will unfortunately result in many more unsolved crimes including murders.

We must, therefore, demand greater respect and accountability from those in a position of trust.

JENNIFER CAINES

Devonshire