BPS ordered to reveal records of ‘any incident’ at Premier’s home
The Bermuda Police Service have been ordered to reveal if they hold records about “any incident” that occurred in March 2021 at the Premier’s official residence.
A decision by the Information Commissioner, Gitanjali Gutierrez, found that the BPS were wrong to reject a public access to information request that sought “any report made by a police officer and any communications between the Commissioner of Police and the Cabinet Office of any incident occurring” that month at Clifton.
She said that it was in the public interest for the public authority to disclose the existence or non-existence of any record responsive to the Pati request and gave the BPS until August 11 to issue a new decision to the requester.
The BPS refused the Pati request on the grounds that if such a record existed it would be exempt because it contained personal information.
Ms Gutierrez wrote that the public authority had misunderstood the Pati Act 2010. She said that the legislation did not exclude information because it was personal information. She said that it permitted the disclosure of personal information “under appropriate circumstances”.
The Information Commissioner reviewed daily reports published by the BPS before April 2021 and found that it was clear that some information about incidents could be released without disclosing personal information.
Ms Gutierrez said that the Pati request identified one individual specifically: the Commissioner of Police.
She wrote: “When weighing the various public-interest factors, the Information Commissioner emphasises that the Commissioner of Police holds a far lesser expectation of privacy with respect to professional communications conducted in his role as the head of the Bermuda Police Service.
“As the most senior officer within the police service, the Commissioner of Police is also accountable to the public for his work-related decision-making and activities.
“Disclosure of certain personal work information of the Commissioner of Police in his communications with the Cabinet Office would further the purposes set out in Section 2 of the Pati Act to increase transparency and accountability, and to inform the public about the decision-making of public authorities.”
The Information Commissioner also wrote: “An additional weighty interest is overcoming what might be unnecessary secrecy surrounding any incidents at Clifton House.
“The public have an interest in knowing the frequency of any incidents on such properties and whether public resources — including funds and personnel — are effectively and appropriately allocated to ensure the security of the Premier’s residence.”
