Damned if you do, damned if you do not?

What would you do if, working in a culture of fear and distrust, your boss asked for information it appears you you should not divulge?

Should your boss ever place you in this situation?

To put this in some context, it appears the information should not, by law, be disclosed to another and the requestor appears to have been asking for information about your boss, or related to their conduct. It appears the rule regarding disclosure is to be found at s.12(4):

The identity of a requester shall be kept confidential and, except with the consent of the requester, may not be disclosed to any person other than a person who is required to deal with the request under this Act.

But you are a lowly police sergeant who handles requests for information disclosure, the providing of information ‘to the world’ in accordance with the country’s Freedom of Information Act (of sorts) and the person seeking the identity of whoever made the request is not you inspector, chief inspector, superintendent etc. but the head of the constabulary, the then Commissioner of Police.  You may think:

• the Commissioner Stephen Mark Corbishley, must have known of the request; he is seeking more information about it
• would the Commissioner necessarily come to know of the requestor’s identity given the nature of the request, what had been sought?
• does the Commissioner have overarching access to information, would they be able to ascertain the information irrespective?
• if a request is made of the Bermuda Police Service, is this not a request handled in the name of the Commissioner?
• if disclosing the information is inappropriate, what of the Commissioner requesting it?
• and what of the Commissioner then forwarding this name to a professional standards manager, Superintendent Gillian Murray
• should the Commissioner have been working at that time – or placed on restricted duties?

In a toxic constabulary where there is a culture of fear, would you be more or less inclined to provide a response to such request?

The above are simply observations, based upon limited information and arise from a complex set of circumstances about which more can be read here.

Apparently, the sergeant’s disciplinary matter related directly to one of the complaints which led to Stephen Corbishley himself being investigated for gross misconduct, on the orders of the Governor, before he abruptly quit in October 2021 – no action taken against him. We have commented on Stephen’s approach to policing before – ‘BPS seeks Gung-ho, Insubordinate & Violent Officers‘.

It is claimed that Darrin Simons, now the Commissioner, knew in 2020 (when in charge of discipline) about the disclosure, but took no action in relation to it.  Really?

Subsequent to the Royal Gazette reporting, they provided a further article ‘ICO corrects report on sacked policeman’ which can be read here.

The events and outcome appear disheartening.

It appears the officer was placed in a very difficult and unfair position. The situation seems to highlight a conflict between their legal obligations under the PATI Act and the pressure from the constabulary’s highest ranking officer (or a desire to appease him).  The Commissioner holds significant authority over someone’s employment and it appears Mr Corbishley is not adverse to taking issue with subordinates. While it is important to prioritize compliance with the law, concerns about potential retaliation appear valid and understandable.

Do you take a stand and politely, justify your inability to provide the information fearing immediate retaliation, or take the chance; disclose and keep your fingers crossed?

Possibly, in hindsight, the person making the complaint about the sergeant’s disclosure, having first hand knowledge of the treatment that can be expected at the hands of the BPS, will now understand the predicament their colleague was in, appreciate why they acted as they did.  Or maybe there is more to the conduct than is currently known.  However, to an outside observer, it appears the wrong person is paying a heavy price for a dispute that has seen the complainant(s) vindicated.

Disclaimer

The comments provided in this post are for consideration purposes only and are not intended to be acted upon as established facts. No liability is accepted for any errors, omissions, or interpretations that may arise from this content. The subject matter discussed is complex, and this post merely aims to raise questions that may or may not be pertinent. Readers are encouraged to seek professional advice or conduct further research before drawing any conclusions or making decisions based on the information shared herein.