The Queen v Tichina Shevonda Richfield

• Jurisdiction: Cayman Islands
• Judge: Honourable Mr. Justice Charles Quin Q.C.
• Judgment Date: 29 December 2014
• Court: Grand Court (Cayman Islands)
• Docket Number: INDICTMENT NO: 103/2012
• Date: 29 December 2014

Between:

The Queen

and

Tichina Shevonda Richfield

[2015] CIGC J0105-1

Before:

The Hon. Mr. Justice Charles Quin

INDICTMENT NO: 103/2012

IN THE GRAND COURT OF THE CAYMAN ISLANDS

RULING ON ABUSE OF PROCESS APPLICATION

1 On the 15^th December 2014 the Defence made a submission that the Court should stop the prosecution of this case and stay proceedings on the grounds that, to allow the trial to continue would be an abuse of the Court's process. Counsel on behalf of the Defendant submits that the application is founded on the grounds of delay and failure of the prosecuting authorities to obtain, retain or disclose material relevant to the case.

In relation to the first ground of this application — that of delay — Crown counsel concedes that there has been some delay but not sufficient to prevent the Defendant from having a fair trial.

2 The case brought by the prosecution charges the Defendant, in her capacity as Acting Secretary of the Work Permit Board of the Cayman Islands Department of Immigration (hereinafter referred to as “the Board”) with fifteen (15) counts of Making a Document Without Authority, contrary to s.293(a) of the Penal Code and one (1) count of Misconduct in Public Office contrary to common law.

CHRONOLOGY

3 In order to properly consider the applicant's submissions, both on delay and on non-disclosure, it is important to record the relevant chronology of events which is largely agreed between the parties as follows:

Year	Date	Activity
2009	8th Oct.	Suspicions first raised about the defendant's conduct. Decision made to review the matter internally.
2010	20th Jan.	Further concerns raised about the defendant's conduct
	25th Jan.	Internal review of immigration record begins
	29th Jan.	Defendant placed on required leave
	1st Feb.	Email from Franz Manderson
	3rd Feb.	Second Audit requested.
	4th Feb.	Second Audit commenced.
	9th Feb.	Allegations put to defendant in meeting at Immigration Dept.
	18th Feb.	Defendant provides a response to the allegations in a letter from her attorney.
	5th March	Second Audit completed.
	13th March	Krista Wood was interviewed by the RCIPS
	18th March	DPP asked to provide a preliminary view as to whether, based on the information provided thus far, there is the possibility of the commission of criminal offences such that the matter should be referred for investigation to the RCIPS in addition to the proposed disciplinary proceedings.
	18th March	The DPP was provided with the following documents; 1. Report dated 4th February 2010 from the Director and Chairman of the Work Permit Board; 2. Audit report dated 11th March 2010 compiled by ACIO Jeremy Scott and AST Regina Jackson; and 3. Letter dated 18th February 2010 from Thorp Alberga on behalf of the Defendant.
	18th March	The DPP concluded ‘I recommend that it would be appropriate for Senior Officers to consider whether this is a matter which should be referred to the RCIPS for investigation, including as to any relevant financial matters and thereafter for further assessment of all evidence obtained.’
	May	File provided to the RCIPS
	10th August	DS Betty Anne Ebanks was tasked by Detective Chief Inspector Brady to investigate ‘allegations made by Linda Evans, the Chief Immigration Officer on certain questionable irregularities, purportedly conducted by Tichina Richfield in her capacity as acting secretary of the Work Permit Board. The mentioned irregularities spanned over a sporadic period of 6 March to 16 December 2009.’
	22nd December	DS Betty Ann Ebanks sent a Memorandum to DCI Brady within which she recommended ‘an internal decision should be taken for Ms. Richfield to explain on what ground she made what is now considered unauthorized entries to the computer system (IMSS) validating the approvals of the various work permits, which did not follow the system and procedures applicable to the renewing and issuing of work permits.’
2011	10th February	CI Brady sent a Memo to Eric Bush, subject title: Investigation — Tichina Rickfield. Within this Memo DCI Brady reached the following conclusion ‘At the completion of the research, it is concluded that at the time we are unable to proceed with any criminal investigation against Ms. Rickfield and suggest that the Department of Immigration to proceed under section 5 of the Public Service Management Law (2010 Revision). After perusing the documents, it appears that Ms. Rickfield may have‘fast tracked’application for Mr. Alberga and Mr. Watler but there is no evidence that she benefited financially or otherwise and shows that she has broken the workplace rule, if there are rules applicable to the process of work permit applications’
	15th February	Statement and signature date of Jeremy Scott's statement.
	3rd March	DCI Brady sought advice from the now DPP providing a copy of DS Ebanks report
	11th March	Letter sent to Michael Alberga stating the matter had been referred to the Attorney General's Office for ruling.
	21st May	The currently incumbent DPP sent an email to DCI Brady subject: Misconduct in Public office — Absence of Remuneration attaching the case ofR v Belton [2011] 1 Cr. App. R 20.
	23rd May	File transferred to DC Spence
	28th May	The currently incumbent DPP sent an email to Allyson Minus-Phillips that she had been advised by the police that they were continuing with the investigation with a view to submitting a full file for ruling as to whether any criminal charges should be laid.
	1st June	Meeting between AG's Chambers and Immigration.
	20th June	Date of Linda Evans' statement.
		Date of Sherryl Miller's statement.
	22nd June	DC Spence drafted statement of Linda Evans.
	28th June	DC Spence met with Linda Evans and Sherryl Miller. Statements drafted and sent to Linda Evans and Sherryl Miller.
	21st November	Linda Evans signed her statement. Sherryl Miller signed her statement.
	30th November	First interview of the Defendant.
2012	9th January	DC Spence continues to contact the applicants.
	19th January	DC Spence still contacting the applicants
	20th January	Orrett Lenard Connor statement date and signature.
	28th January	Lemuel Hurlston statement date and signature.
	31st January	Franz Manderson statement and signature.
	7th March	Second Interview of the Defendant.
	March	Case sent to the DPP for Ruling.
	10th April	DC Spence completes her reports and refers it to DI Lavine.
	12th April	File submitted to the ODPP for ruling
	30th April	Michael Snape's Ruling
	29th May	Tichina Rick field formally arrested and charged.
	7th June	Charges laid.
	19th June	First Summary Court appearance.
	7th December	First Grand Court appearance. John Furniss indicates that he will write to the Crown re disclosure.
2013	29th August	Email from Michael Snape to Suzanne Livingston, John Furniss copied into the email indicating that the trial date of the 7 October is likely to be vacated.
	26th September	Defence disclosure request.
	7th October	First trial date vacated on joint application due to outstanding disclosure.
	10th October	Michael Snape sent DC Spence John Furniss disclosure request.
2014	10th March	Second trial date vacated for defence counsel's convenience
	24th March	Third trial date vacated for crown counsel's convenience
	20th October	Fourth trial date. Moved to 22nd October 2014 for Crown counsel's convenience. Defence application to adjourn due to lack of legal aid is refused.
	22nd October	Trial date vacated due to lack of court space.

THE DEFENDANT'S/APPLICANT'S SUBMISSIONS

4 The case has aged for five (5) years: Counsel on behalf of the Applicant submits that the result of the delay is that the Defendant will now stand trial for matters which first came to light five (5) years ago. Counsel submits that whilst a delay of five years in the matter coming to trial is of concern, it is the delay from May 2010 to March 2012 that causes most concern and the most significant prejudice to the Defendant. Counsel submits that no good or proper reasons have been provided for such a lengthy delay in the investigation by the Department of Immigration and then by the RCIPS and submits that the effect is that the Applicant first formally answered questions in relation to the allegations three (3) years after they first arose.

5 Defendant's early Response and Requests for Information : Counsel places great store on the letter of the Applicant's attorneys, Thorp Alberga, dated the 18^th February 2010 and states that this letter sets out the Defendant's positon and asks for further discovery. It is the Applicant's case that her attorneys chased up this request with the Department of Immigration — asking that the Applicant either be taken off required leave or civil proceedings for wrongful termination would be filed. Accordingly, counsel on behalf of the Applicant submits that the Applicant did make efforts to assert her rights.

6 Board's Workload/Agenda for Meeetings: Counsel highlights the fact that there are fifteen counts of making a document without authority contrary to s.293(a) of the Penal Code — spanning the period from the 12^th January 2009 until the 21^st January 2010. During this period the Applicant was the Acting Secretary of the Board — which, counsel contends, was seriously overworked during this time and there was an almost chaotic backlog. For example, if a work permit ran out in January 2010 and the applicant would apply for renewal for 12 months, frequently the application for the renewal was not considered until later in 2011 — long after...