Activist judge made sole determination of corruption in Turks and Caicos causing UK takeover

Sir Robin Auld had a last ovation with his assignment as the sole investigator of Turks and Caicos Islands to decide if the Michael Misick administration engaged in corruption. Yes, Sir Robin Auld was the sole "judge and jury" of corruption findings in the islands.

Indeed, Sir Robin Auld reported findings of "clear signs of corruption" and published his findings of same in the Crown Commission of Enquiry Report. Shortly thereafter, the UK stripped Turks and Caicos of self governance and its autonomous constitution, and UK's new interim government was installed.

This corruption report is unique in that it was made solely by a UK's activist judge. In 2001, Sir Robin Auld was credited with creating the Blueprint for Reform of Criminal Courts, whereby he sought to dramatically diminish the necessity of a jury citing in part that jurors are not sufficiently sophisticated to serve on a jury panel. Sir Robin Auld has a highly controversial reputation in the United Kingdom as an activist judge. In recent years he has worked as a retired judge on behalf of crown investigations to make sole determinations. Indeed, there is near outrage in the UK surrounding Sir Robin Auld's methodology.

Some of the quotes attributed to Sir Robin Auld are as follows:

"Sir Robin Auld thinks judges should be able to overturn verdicts if they think the jurors have got it wrong."

"A government statement on the Auld report describes the recommendations as 'radical and far-reaching'."

"Sir Robin Auld's seminal report, go[es] to the very heart of how a society should put its citizens on trial."

This is the gentleman who made the sole decision that the UK's ultimate governance was appropriate in the Turks and Caicos Islands.

In his Commission of Enquiry Report, addressing alleged corruption in Turks and Caicos government, Sir Robin admits, "I am appointed the sole commissioner of inquiry." (Introduction Section 1.1)

Sir Robin Auld admits that he will decide, " ... is there information in whatever form and giving it the weight I consider it deserves." (Section 1.3)

"I am to consider in light of the information before me." (Section 1.4 and again in 1.5)

When speaking of the findings of corruption, Auld states, "These I have interpreted." (section 1.5)

Sir Robin Auld clearly was the sole investigator and weigher of proof with respect to the entire investigation.

Furthermore, Sir Robin Auld's language lacks a clear decisiveness of actual wrong doing.

In the enquiry report, Sir Robin Auld states, "I received much information pointing to possible systemic corruption ... strong information before me, of the need for changes in other related matters."

He states, "There is information of possible corruption." (Section 6)

Auld's findings is said to be self-serving as one analyst determined, "... with only 7,000 to 10,000 Belongers capable of serving on a jury, staunch political patronage systems and clan loyalties, and the necessity for a unanimous verdict, there is just too much of a risk that political targets like Misick will walk away free and more popular than before. The solution is clear: fly in some hanging judges from England, suspend the right to a jury and success is all but guaranteed."

Sir Robin Auld came to the islands with a clear goal, the plausible findings of corruption, and to make certain that Misick is ruined beyond repair so that there are no loyalties from the people toward Misick and more importantly no opposition of the UK takeover. The goal appears to make it look as if Michael Misick took from the people and shared the fortune with outsiders, corporate and greedy developers. The people would turn against their own and seek refuge from the UK.

The UK assured the people of Turks and Caicos that they would continue to employ and support local islanders to make government decisions. However, this did not happen. Key islanders in government were suddenly and mysteriously dismissed for one reason or another and replaced by UK hires.

Moreover, Robin Auld has a reputation for recruiting certain media outlets to make uk's case to the people, citing: "The media, of course, can strongly influence peoples' perceptions of the world around them. Sometimes it can even persuade them not to believe the evidence of their own eyes. Put simply, when the prosecuting authority exercises its vocal chords, it is axiomatic that it must be telling the truth. This is a critical foundation of public trust."

It is not clear how or if Sir Robin Auld used the media to gain public support in Turks and Caicos but there have been very opinionated media outlets in UK's favor in the islands making the UK case.

Legal analysts say that utilising Sir Robin Auld's one-judge theory can have controversial conclusions: "prosecutors must be wary of political rhetoric that cannot deliver. More than that, they must have the confidence to say no to it. ... serious crime cases the criminal standard of proof should be lowered. Firstly because it appeared to conflict rather crudely with our international obligations, being notably inconsistent with Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights - which deals with the presumption of innocence. Secondly, because it appeared to conflict equally crudely with our common law norms and with learning on the civil standard of proof in cases of particular import to individuals whose reputational rights are engaged by the issues in question. Thirdly because it would inevitably mean sending men and women to prison for perhaps many years- in the face of reasonable doubts about their guilt."

Next, does the energy put into the investigation of corruption or any alleged corruption warrant the risk of an incorrect outcome at the hands of one man who is said to be "radical"? The risk of using this model to exact an international outcome or punishment upon the so-called wrong-doers, could rest on the credibility and the sensibilities of one person. Who would allow this monumental decision solely on the merits of one person, let alone a radical?

Even Sir Robin Auld gives himself leave for catastrophic errors should any be found, by using language such as "information pointing to possible", "strong possibility", "information I considered".

Another legal analyst points out that: "On it face, these [corruption] charges will require further investigation, forensic analysis and evidence, before they can rise to the level of an indictment. Mr. Justice Sir Robin Auld seemed attuned to this, as everywhere in the report, he himself constantly raised ‘reasonable doubts as to the criminal import of the behavior he described. This is a generally a 'conflict of interest', which is itself not a crime. Mr. Justice Sir Robin Auld again, himself shows us to the problems, saying that most of the information was 'hearsay', which we know cannot be admissible in a court of law. As such, the report itself is the forerunner of another prolix process, which is an investigation. However, much can be revealed in a general consideration of some of the issues raised by Sir Robin. The question of criminal charges is paramount here: In general, it is hard to see how anything described as a 'possibility', as Auld indicates repeatedly, can also be proved 'beyond reasonable doubt'. The very nature of a 'possibility' means there is no proof in the hands of the person who describes it as such."

Sir Robin Auld has clearly redetermined the burden of proof standard and has given way to probabilities and possibilities as the new threshold of punitive actions. Auld clearly lacks evidence from which to conclusively determine wrong-doing. To overthrow a democratically elected government based on the balance of possibilities vs. preponderance of the evidence, seems foolish at best if not illegal.

In Sir Robin Auld's report, he alleges in his summary that Crown land was sold to developers on "favourable terms" with the "government approval of its commercial development." Another legal analysis of the Auld's corruption report dealt with Joe Grant Cay, an island deal between developer Cem Kinay and the Misick government. It was legally analyzed as follows, "The fp has had the advantage of reviewing the Joe Grant Cay deal, and the only issue that makes that deal intriguing is an absolutely bizarre (patently ridiculous) perception of the part of some about the value of Joe Grant Cay in its natural state. When such naïve assumptions are removed, the deal is quite to the advantage of the Turks and Caicos government."

Indeed Joe Grant Cay island remained uninhabited for 100 years with no infrastructure and was unwanted by many developers. The Misick administration of government offered abundant inducements for Dr. Kinay to develop the long-forgotten island. Sir Robin Auld could have possibly missed Misick's press release celebrating the sale as a victory for the Crown. Yet Sir Robin Auld deduced this transaction as shrouded in bribes. In fact, yes certainly the "government approval of its commercial development" was given, as stated by Auld, however (and this is rather funny) the approval was given by His Excellency Gordon Wethrell, the UK governor who remains in charge today for the UK interim government. Auld's own boy granted the development approval, not Misick or anyone in the Misick administration.

As for Misick's lifestyle which was used as the most damning evidence of corruption, Misick explained, "What we were doing here was creating the ‘Monte Carlo of the Caribbean’. You need First World infrastructure, First World accommodations, celebrities, businessmen. You need to create that atmosphere to be competitive. That is a policy direction. Is that corrupt? No."

http://www.tciwatch.com http://www.computerweekly.com/Articles/2001/10/16/182991/joined-up-criminal-justice-system-is-condemned.htm http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/its-justice-but--not-as-we-know-it-631468.html http://tcfreepress.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=903&;Itemid=1 http://thefastertimes.com/internationallaw-society/2009/08/20/britain-suspends-turks-caicos-government-constitution-and-jury-trials/