Outcomes - Selected Case Summaries
Categories
Member of public lodges complaint that police officer displayed unprofessional conduct
Investigation | 12 December 2023
Royal Cayman Islands Police Service (RCIPS)
The Office of the Ombudsman (“the OMB”) received a complaint from a member of the public (the complainant) concerning the alleged unprofessional conduct of a member of the RCIPS during the course of an investigation in response to a welfare check initiated by the officer who is attached to the RCIPS Community Policing Unit (CPU).
The complainant states they locked the elderly person whom they care for inside their home to attend church. While praying at the alter the officer entered the church and interrupted them. The complainant further states that they were not pleased with the way in which they were approached by the officer and was concerned about the reputation of the church and the impact the officers’ presence may have on their reputation.
The complainant says the officer should have found another way of communicating with them, instead of visiting the church.
The OMB had to decide, based on a balance of probabilities, whether:
- the police officer’s conduct was aligned with the RCIPS Code of Ethics and Standards of Professional Behaviour.
- Was it necessary and appropriate for the officer to contact the complainant during a church service.
The investigation included gathering statements and interviewing the officer and complainant. This also included a review of the RCIPS Code of Conduct and Standards of Professional Behavior.
During our investigation, we spoke with the officer who refuted that they were unprofessional towards the complainant and provided investigators with some background information leading up to why there was immediate concern for the welfare of an elderly person and that it was imminent that the complainant be located immediately.
The officer who is attached to the CPU was carrying out their duties as part of their community work when they made a welfare check on an elderly person and received no response. They waited for a period of time to see if someone would return to the premises. During this time, they spoke with a neighbor, who informed them the elderly person who is disabled was often left alone, and their food which is delivered by a community organization was left out in the sun for hours. The neighbor also stated that their caretaker (the complainant) often left them alone for extended periods of time.
The officer returned to the premises and knocked on the window, approximately twenty minutes later they were able to speak with the elderly person who was having difficulty getting to the door due to their disability.
The officer inquired who was caring for them and they stated it was the complainant; however, they did not have a cell phone or contact information to contact them.
The officer contacted the community organization manager who provides the food delivery service and was informed that they had received a similar complaint that the food was being left outside the home for extended periods of time.
The officer conducted inquiries which led them to the complainants’ Church. Upon arrival the officer spoke to a security guard who did not know the complainant. The security guard made inquiries in the Church on behalf of the officer and a short while later an unknown person informed the officer that the complainant was finishing at the altar and would come outside soon. The officer said they waited outside for about fifteen minutes and never entered the Church or discussed the matter with anyone.
When the complainant came outside, they informed the officer that they had indeed left the elderly person, locked the door and taken the keys with them. The officer told the complainant they should not lock the elderly person in and leave them alone for extended periods of time. The complainant stated they were attending to the elderly person alone in the absence of the other caregiver and that they could not attend to them around the clock. It was then agreed the complainant would return as soon as possible.
The officer recorded this information in the police report and further made a referral to the Multi Agency Safeguarding Hub (M.A.S.H) so that Social Services were made aware of the incident. The officer also stated that they would continue to make sporadic welfare checks during their patrols.
The OMB concluded from the information obtained by the investigators that this was not an isolated incident, and the officer had every right to be concerned for the safety and welfare of the elderly person.
The officer was unable to obtain a contact number for the complainant; therefore, the only available option was to follow up on the information that the complainant was at Church.
The officer denied entering the Church, as previously reported by the complainant and it was later confirmed by the complainant during their interview that the officer did not.
The OMB found that based on the information obtained and on a balance of probabilities, the officer’s conduct in the performance of their lawful duties was not unsatisfactory or fell below the RCIPS Standards of Professional Behaviour.
The complaint was not upheld.