A reader writes on the 'stolen document' question:
It's interesting, this. There are really only two places on the table as places the documents could have come from - the Police and the Auditor General.If they really were stolen, as the Police and the Government insist they were, then the auditor general must be off the hook, except if he failed to report the theft.
It might be unpleasant for the proud Police Service to think that they might have been leaked by one of their own (and this is no doubt the reason people are saying they were stolen). But how much more unpleasant is it to think these documents, subject of a special 'take care' notice from the Governor, might have been stolen from, presumably, the most secure place in Police HQ. That really is an assumption that says volumes about Police competence, isn't it?
The obvious absurdity of the witch-hunt and arrest of the Auditor General is....that the Police should be focusing first and foremost on themselves. Surely?
Mr. Dennis has always said he had copies...which I've come to the conclusion based on the input of my rapidly increasing cadre of legal advisers, cannot possibly be considered stolen property unless it is the original. And even then it's probably not more than a petty theft.
As one reader put it:
As regards the question you pose on this topic - there is NO Data Protection Act in Bermuda therefore the issue relates to the paper and ink alone.
So at worst the individual who has the original copies - if it hasn't been destroyed (or misplaced) can probably only be legally charged with stealing $20 worth of paper and ink. The confidential nature of the information printed on the paper appears to be something of little interest under the law.
Any other lawyer types disagree?
Posted by Christian S. Dunleavy