Police ordered to release records to former officer
A refusal by the Bermuda Police Service to disclose to a former superintendent some records containing personal information about him has been described as “absurd” by LaKai Dill, the Deputy Information Commissioner.
The records concerning Nicholas Pedro had already been released to other public access to information requesters but the BPS’s information officer rejected a request from Mr Pedro for them.
The refusal was upheld by Darrin Simons, the Commissioner of Police, but has now been overturned by Ms Dill, who has ordered the BPS to provide Mr Pedro with 31 partial records, after it removes other exempt material, by September 19.
The Deputy Information Commissioner wrote in a decision published last week that the BPS “incorrectly withheld” the former policeman’s personal information, as well as information that was not personally identifying.
She wrote that information relating to him alone was not exempt personal information, in the circumstances, and should have been disclosed to him.
Ms Dill found that the BPS partly justified its refusal to disclose records, where those records contained other parties’ personal information and had met its obligations to search for the records and respond to Mr Pedro.
Mr Pedro, who was not named in the ICO decision but gave The Royal Gazette permission to identify him, said his October 2023 public access to information request to the BPS “was made to understand when and how information about me had previously been disclosed by the BPS under Pati and the basis upon which those decisions were made”.
He said: “Despite my rights under the Pati Act 2010, both the BPS information officer and the Commissioner of Police refused to provide me with access to my own personal information and to records which had already been released to other applicants.
“The Deputy Information Commissioner has now confirmed that the BPS was wrong to withhold certain records, including my own personal information and information which was not personally identifying.”
Mr Pedro, a former head of the BPS’s crime division, added: “While I welcome this partial ruling in my favour, I remain concerned about the way this request was handled.
“It is deeply troubling that I was denied access to records that the law entitles me to and that I was required to undergo a lengthy external review to secure information about myself.
“I am equally concerned that the Commissioner of Police upheld the refusal during my internal appeal, despite the Pati Act’s clear requirements.
“The Pati Act was enacted to promote transparency, accountability and public confidence in public authorities.”
He claimed: “My experience highlights weaknesses in how the BPS has approached its obligations, particularly with respect to safeguarding requester rights and properly applying the [personal information] exemptions under section 23 of the Act.”
Mr Pedro made his request while facing charges of gross misconduct. He lost his job after a closed-doors disciplinary hearing last December and has since asked the Governor to launch an independent inquiry into the conduct of senior officers.
The ICO decision explained that he made his Pati request “aware that, in the past few years, others had made requests under Pati to the BPS seeking disclosure of BPS records that, in some way, related to [him].
“[He] wanted more information about those prior Pati requests, the BPS’s decision-making on them and their outcomes.”
Mr Simons, in his internal review decision, acknowledged that the public interest purpose of the Pati Act was “to facilitate transparency from public authorities in general” but added “this does not automatically imply a public right of access to personal information disclosed on a conditional basis to another applicant”.
He told Mr Pedro: “In this case, the overall purpose and wording of the Pati Act indicates an intent to protect the confidentiality of personal information where possible, as well as respecting requester privacy, which would be undercut by releasing data given to another applicant.”
Ms Dill, in her August 8 decision, wrote that “in a general sense” she found it “an absurd conclusion that previous requesters would have been granted access, under Pati, to records related to the applicant, which the public authority had not decided were exempt for other reasons from those other requesters’ access, while the applicant would be later refused access to the same records, especially where parts exclusively contained their own personally identifying information (ie, not mixed with the prior requesters’ personal information)”.
She added: “It would be reasonable for people to seek to be informed about exactly what parts of their personal information a public authority had decided was appropriate to release under Pati.”
Mr Simons was asked for comment, but none was provided by the time of publication.
• To read the Information Commissioner’s Office decision and accompanying press release, see Related Media
You must be Registered or to post comment or to vote.
