BETWEEN Andrew Miller Respondent/Plaintiff v The Governor of the Cayman Islands Portfolio of the Civil Service, Cayman Islands Attorney General of the Cayman Islands Applicants/Defendants
| Jurisdiction | Cayman Islands |
| Judge | Margaret Ramsay-Hale, Chief Justice |
| Judgment Date | 11 July 2023 |
| Docket Number | G 208 of 2022 |
| Court | Grand Court (Cayman Islands) |
Applicants/Defendants
Hon. Margaret Ramsay-Hale, Chief Justice
G 208 of 2022
IN THE GRAND COURT OF THE CAYMAN ISLANDS
CIVIL DIVISION
Civil procedure - pleading - striking out - Grand Court (Civil Procedure) Rules, r.41(1)(a) - whether pleading discloses a cause of action with a reasonable prospect of success.
Mr. Andrew Miller in person
Mr. Jevon Alcock of The Attorney General's Chambers for The Governor of the Cayman Islands and Ors.
By Writ and Statement of Claim filed on 15 September 2022 the Plaintiff, Mr. Andrew Miller, commenced proceedings against the Defendants, The Governor of the Cayman Islands, the Portfolio of the Civil Service and the Attorney General, seeking to challenge the 2007 decision of the Commissioner of Police (the “CoP”) to dismiss him from the Royal Cayman Islands Police Service (the “RCIPS”).
The Court refused Mr. Miller's application for leave to amend the Statement of Claim and for leave to substitute a fresh party for the named Defendants to the action and struck out the Writ and Statement of Claim on the application of the Deputy Attorney General as disclosing no reasonable cause of action.
I gave brief ex tempore reasons for my decision, promised to put fuller reasons in writing and ordered that the time for applying for leave to appeal would run from the date the written reasons were handed down. I apologise to the parties for the delay in providing those reasons.
I have taken the background to these proceedings from the Statement of Claim. Mr. Miller joined the RCIPS in 1984. In January 1998, he was seconded to the Hampshire Constabulary in the United Kingdom. While there, he attended the Scientific Support College at New Scotland Yard where he completed advanced Certification as a Fingerprint Expert. He is registered with the Home Office as a Fingerprint Expert.
Between 1998 and 2007, a decision was made by the CoP and senior management of the RCIPS to convert the Scientific Support Branch, which included forensic experts like Mr. Miller, to a civilian agency supporting the work of the RCIPS to achieve certain efficiencies. When that conversion was complete, the officers who worked in the Scientific Support Branch would cease to be warranted officers.
Before his secondment, Mr. Miller asserts that he agreed with then Commissioner of Police, Mr. David Thursfield that at the relevant time, he would retire as a police officer and be re-hired on a fixed term contract by the RCIPS in a civilian capacity in the Scientific Support Branch.
In July 2000, Mr. Miller returned to the RCIPS and rejoined the Scientific Support Branch. He was promoted to the rank of Sergeant and appointed as Deputy head of the department. When the civilian unit was established, Mr. Miller, who was a permanent and pensionable member of the RCIPS, was not allowed to continue as a civilian fingerprint expert within the department. Rather, he was retired “ in the public interest” by the CoP at the relevant time, Mr. Stuart Kemohan, and required to surrender his warrant card.
It would appear that Mr. Miller accepted his fate as he pursued his legal studies and by 2011, was undertaking the Legal Practice Course in the UK.
On a particular day in the Fall of 2011, while on campus, he overheard two of his fellow students talking about him. They then spoke to him to inquire whether a certain post on the Google website was written about him. He did a Google search himself and found a post which described him as “ an expert from the Cayman Islands” who had been fired “ for unknown reasons.” The post also stated that he had committed offences of dishonesty. He was prompted to search the Judicial website where he found his name in the criminal list for the Summary Court as appearing on a charge of theft.
In 2012, he engaged a firm of solicitors in the UK to assist him in removing this post from the Google website on the grounds that it was defamatory.
On the 11 August 2021, some 9 years later, and 15 years after he ceased to be employed by the RCIPS, Mr. Miller wrote what may be construed as a letter before action 1 to the Premier, the Hon. Wayne Panton copied to His Excellency, the Governor, the Hon. Attorney General and the Deputy Governor and head of the Civil Service, Mr. Franz Manderson among others, asserting a claim for “ Unfair/Constructive dismissal and abuse of Public Office.”
A year later, he commenced these proceedings in which he seeks damages related to the loss of his employment with the RCIPS and for defamation.
The application to strike out the Statement of Claim was advanced on all grounds under GCR O.18 r. 19 and under the inherent jurisdiction off the Court to protect its process from abuse.
Rule 19 provides that the Court may at any stage of the proceedings order to be struck out any pleading on the ground that,
-
(i) it discloses no reasonable cause of action, or
-
(ii) it is scandalous, frivolous and vexatious, or
-
(iii) it may prejudice or embarrass or delay the fair trail of the action; or
-
(iv) it is otherwise an abuse of the process of the court.
No evidence is admissible in support of the first ground, which is only concerned with determining whether the allegations in the pleading disclose a cause of action with some chance of success: see Bank of Butterfield (Cayman) Ltd v Crang 1992–93 CILR 409
Although Mr. Miller studied law, he is not a lawyer. The unhappy consequence of his choosing to settle his own pleadings is that the pleaded case is riven with errors which are patent on the most cursory reading of the Statement of Claim.
The claim, which I have summarized rather than setting out it in full...
To continue reading
Request your trial