... and UDP Gov't pledges no confidence

Should the Attorney General refuse to resign, the United Democratic Party (UDP) Government will again request the Governor or the Foreign and Commonwealth Office to remove him.
This was stated by UDP leader the Hon. McKeva Bush who said if it becomes necessary the Legislative Assembly will be asked to pass a motion of no confidence in the Attorney-General.

The full text of Mr. Bush's address:

Statement by the Leader of Government Business and Leader of the United Democratic Party (UDP), the Hon. McKeeva Bush at a public meeting in George Town, on Monday January 20, 2003.

The UDP Government in a short statement issued last Thursday night (15 Jan. 2003) on CITN promised to keep the public updated as further matters came to light.

Since that time, your Government has been addressing various issues, a number of them appearing in the press. This is a further update on the events.

We have reviewed more carefully the written judgment of the Chief Justice handed down by him on 3rd January 2003 in which he reviewed the extraordinary evidence (given in the absence of the Jury) that emerged during the course of the Eurobank trial between 5th November 2002 and 13th December 2002 and which judgment until 14th January 2003 was not released for publication.

We note that it was the findings made by the Chief Justice, in the light of the evidence that emerged, that led to the announcement on Monday and Tuesday of last week by the Attorney-General that the prosecution would be offering no further evidence against the four persons charged with various criminal offences and whose trial started on 25th June 2002 and to the formal entry of verdicts of not guilty on each count of the indictment brought by the Attorney-General against the Defendants.

The findings of the Chief Justice based as they are on the evidence given in this case are unreservedly accepted by us and indeed they were also accepted by the Attorney-General when in announcing his decision to offer no further evidence, he said "if people had acted properly The Crown would not be in this position".

It is clear that improper action caused this trial to become the fiasco that it has turned out to be.

The Attorney-General was responsible for the FRU and is the person who bears the ultimate responsibility for whatever went wrong.

The content of the detailed findings of the Chief Justice causes us much concern and came as a complete surprise to us.

Despite the fact that extraordinary and disturbing evidence was being revealed at the trial as from 5th November 2002, the Attorney-General gave no indication whatever to Executive Council as to the alarming turn of events that were taking place and as to the consequences that could follow from it.

We were kept completely in the dark by him and while we understand that the details were to be kept in camera, we find it to be quite deplorable that no indication of problems was ever made to us.

The evidence that gave rise to the findings that were made by the Chief Justice is regarded by this Government as alarming and reprehensible.

Standing out amongst the wholly inappropriate actions of the prosecution team in the investigation and prosecution of this matter are:-

1. The encouragement by Mr. Brian Gibbs, The Director of the Financial Reporting Unit to Mr. Edward Warwick to provide confidential information from the files of the Bank. This was in breach of Mr. Warwick's contractual duty of confidence and a criminal offence under the Confidential Relationships (Preservation) Law of the Cayman Islands;

2. The part played by the (unnamed) Agency of the United Kingdom Government in this prosecution and its interference with the Royal Cayman Islands Police inquiry into Gibbs which appears to have resulted in the deliberate destruction on the instruction of this Agency of documents that should have been disclosed to the Defence;

3. The passing of information received by Gibbs in his capacity as Director of the Financial Reporting Unit to the Intelligence Agency in London apparently without the specific approval of the Attorney-General;

4. The apparent desire of the United Kingdom Government Agency to make this a "showpiece prosecution" from which it was essential that a conviction should result even if the rule of law and the obligation to ensure that the Defendants received a fair trial were infringed.

Apparently it was so vital to obtain a conviction that the code name "Operation Victory" was given to the enterprise and Edward Warwick who was to play secretly the role of an informer to Gibbs (who was the agency's man in Cayman) was given the code name "Warlock". It was part of the plan to keep both the Agency's involvement and Warwick's role as an informer secret so that Warwick could be put forward to the jury as a "paragon of banking virtue" and held up as an example of a prudent and upright Banker in comparison to the alleged illegal conduct of the Defendant Bankers which the prosecution would allege and did allege.

5. The entering into the agreement known as the "London Plan" which agreement according to the Chief Justice "involved a process by which the Court would have been inevitably misled as to the true provenance, custody and composition of the Warwick and intelligence material". The fact that the Attorney-General and the leading Counsel for the prosecution were persuaded to enter into such agreement by the Agency is disgraceful. It is clear from the Chief Justice's findings that they feared the complete collapse of the prosecution if they did not enter into it ­ a result which has now taken place because of it. This was a clear interference by the United Kingdom Government Agency into the administration of justice in the Cayman Islands.

There can be no doubt from the findings of fact made by the Chief Justice and the decision of the Attorney-General to offer no further evidence against the accused persons, that it is unchallengeable:-
(a) That there has been an abuse of the Court's process by the prosecution;
(b) That as a result of that abuse the Defendants could have been denied a fair trial; and
(c) That there has been, at the very least, a grossly negligent approach by the prosecution to its duty of disclosure to the Court and to the Defendants.
(d) It is the inappropriate and improper actions of the prosecution and the investigative team that caused the collapse of the trial.

The Attorney-General must accept the responsibility for the disastrous outcome to this prosecution and for the inept, inappropriate and improper handling of it.

The Government expects to receive his immediate resignation.

The Attorney-General has previously displayed an unwillingness to indicate that he would be following Government's policy based on the intention of the Legislative Assembly that tax evasion should not constitute a predicate offence for the purpose of charging our financial providers with the offence of money laundering.

He also failed to give us any indication of problems with this trial; on what was being revealed as it progressed or as to the costs that were being incurred.

We have consequently lost confidence in the Attorney-General as Government's Chief Legal Adviser.

We have lost complete trust in him and we would hope that he would take the appropriate action of tendering his resignation.

Further consideration will be given as to what should be the proper course to be taken in relation to the disgraceful and improper conduct of Mr. Brian Gibbs, the Director of the FRU who has been found by the Court to be a liar and has emerged as a thoroughly untrustworthy and unreliable person.

One thing is however certain, Mr. Gibbs will not be allowed to remain as the Director of a most important and sensitive organisation as the FRU.

That Unit will have to be cleansed of any improper philosophy and culture that he may have developed therein and will be completely restructured and organised without him.

That Unit should never have been removed from the supervision and direction of the Commissioner of Police to whom it properly belongs.

The course taken by the former Governor and the Attorney-General, who were together responsible for removing the Commissioner of Police from the FRU, is regrettable and is a decision that should never have been taken or supported.

This strange arrangement was one, we are advised, which may be illegal and contrary to the Police Law. As you all will probably know, Mr. Gibbs left the Island shortly after our feelings on this matter were made known.

As to the Counsel selected and employed by the Attorney-General to conduct this prosecution and upon whose advice he seems to have relied, this Government wishes to make it clear that they will not sanction the employment of either of those Counsel for any other proceedings or prosecutions brought by the Cayman Islands Government.

The full Order as to the costs which may flow from the abortive trial has not yet been announced and a further statement will be made by us on this aspect of the matter as soon as possible after the Order is made known and we are informed of it.

There are likely to be other financial and negative effects.

In spite of the fact that this prosecution has been a fiasco and one which was ineptly handled by the prosecution team, the Cayman Islands have nevertheless demonstrated to the world that we have an independent Judiciary who can be relied upon to give effect to the well known saying "let justice be done, if the heavens fall".

We have also shown to the world that we possess here a Judiciary to whom the Public can resort in confidence and be assured that effect will be given in a proper way to the rule of law and that a decision demanded by the evidence will result even if such a decision reflects adversely on persons in high places in the Executive.

The outcome of this case fully demonstrates that there is indeed a realistic separation of the Judiciary and the Executive in the Cayman Islands.

The Government intends to take the following steps:-
1. To continue to call upon the Attorney-General to resign, and to refuse to participate with the Attorney-General in the systems of the democracy which rely upon his leadership and advice.

2. If the Attorney-General takes this course, which he ought in the circumstances to take, to ask the Governor to appoint the Solicitor-General, Mr. Sam Bulgin to act as Attorney-General.

3. To request the acting Attorney-General to consider and advise us as to whether Mr. Brian Gibbs or anyone else connected with this prosecution should be charged with any criminal offences.

4. If the Attorney-General continues in his refusal to resign, to again request the Governor or the Foreign and Commonwealth Office in London to remove him. If it becomes necessary we will ask the Legislative Assembly to pass a motion of no confidence in the Attorney-General.

It should be noted that the Attorney-General is recruited, employed and to a large extent directed by the Governor and the Foreign and Commonwealth Office. It is within their power to secure his removal.

5. To request the Chief Justice to forward his findings of fact to the disciplinary organisations of the appropriate Bar Associations for their consideration as to whether any disciplinary action is appropriate.

6. To remove Mr. Brian Gibbs as Director of the FRU and to return the supervision and authority over that Unit to the Commissioner of Police with a direction to him to restructure and reorganise that body.

7. To request the Governor to appoint a dependable and trustworthy financial reporting authority who can be relied upon to behave properly and who on receiving suspicious activity reports will decide which of them should be referred to the Commissioner for investigation by the FRU and action by them, if necessary.

8. To assist banks and financial institutions in whatever way we can to improve their security; to prevent infiltration by the likes of Mr. Gibbs and to remove any informers that may have been secretly placed within their organisations.

9. To seek advice on the legality of the distribution of information apparently made by Mr. Gibbs, and to ascertain the destination of that information, the reasons for its distribution and the use to which it is being put.

10. To examine and strengthen various laws to protect the privacy of personal information and the protection of civil liberties and the rule of law, and to increase penalties for the illegal distribution of information by the authorities, law enforcement or otherwise. The Cayman Islands led the way with the introduction and implementation of some of the world's most progressive and stringent anti-money laundering legislation. Our commitment to this end has not been weakened by these events. We are also committed to see that this is achieved in accordance with the provisions of the statutes that we have passed and in an entirely legal, proper and unquestionable manner. We will continue to collaborate with the U.K. Government to achieve this end.

11. To ascertain:-

(a) whether Mr. Brian Gibbs was paid a salary by the United Kingdom's Government Agency; and

(b) whether anyone else in the Cayman Islands is on the payroll of the U.K Government Agency and if yes, who.

12. To request the Governor to claim an indemnity from the U.K. Government in respect of the costs that have been incurred by our Government in pursuing this abortive trial and also in respect of any damages that may result therefrom.

13. To work in a constructive, calm and sensible manner with the Governor and the FCO to implement the necessary reforms which are essential to restoring the proper functioning of our democratic systems and to restore the confidence of our people and those who live and do business in and from our Islands.

14. We have noted the PPM's call for an inquiry and we do not believe that sufficient thought was given to this aspect of their public statement. A fair and impartial tribunal headed by The Honourable Chief Justice, Mr. Anthony Smellie, heard evidence and made findings of fact after the same was tested by our long established and accepted system of justice. His findings were accepted by the Attorney-General and what is now necessary is remedial action and to this end, we the UDP have been hard at work.

This matter reaches beyond party politics and only by putting the same behind us and by working in a bipartisan manner, can our people be assured that their elected members will secure a bright future for them, their children and future generations.

We have no intention or desire of escalating this crisis further or to call or move towards independence.

We have urged the Governor and the FCO to initiate constructive dialogue to restore the faith and confidence in out democratic systems in such a manner that all may be ensured that the FCO have the interest of the people of the Cayman Islands at the forefront of their relationship with this territory, as it was in the distant but not forgotten past.

One of the lessons to be learnt from these unfortunate circumstances is that we must begin to place a greater degree of trust and confidence in our people and those that have lived here for years, contributed to our well-being and demonstrated that they have the best interests of the country and its people at the forefront of their minds.

To ensure this, we must secure the promotion to important positions of those among us who deserve the same.

As progress is made towards our ultimate goal as set out above and further information comes into our possession, the UDP Government will continue to deal effectively, calmly and sensibly with these events and to inform the Public of any new developments.

Good night and may God
bless you all.

Return