The Cindy Clarke saga: anatomy of a high level legal row

A letter at the centre of a high level legal row paints a gloomy picture of a divided and demoralized Government department.

The letter was presented to the Attorney General by members of the Department of Public Prosecutions and — as previously revealed by the Bermuda Sun — appears to have played a key role in the controversy surrounding Cindy Clarke.

Bermudian Ms Clarke was in the mix for promotion to the role of Director of Public Prosecution but Governor George Fergusson decided instead to extend the contract of incumbent Rory Field, a British expatriate.

The letter, which the Bermuda Sun has seen, was written in November after Deputy Director Ms Clarke was told she would not be promoted, at least not yet, despite being recommended by a panel handpicked by the Governor. 

Signed by eight DPP employees (five lawyers and three support staff), the letter is critical of Mr Field’s management of the department. Signatories claim that he: spends too much time at overseas conferences and workshops with no tangible benefit to the department; provides little court support for his “horribly shorthanded” team and exercises favouritism in the office, which saps morale.  

Despite clear divisions within in the department, we have been assured by one of the people connected to the letter that staff continue to carry out their duties diligently and professionally, notwithstanding the controversy that has swirled around them. 

We reached out to Mr Field for comment but he declined. 

We requested an interview with Governor Fergusson and also sent him a dozen questions, most of which he declined to answer. Through a spokeswoman, the Governor told us: “I have full confidence in Mr Field as DPP. I have seen a petition, not addressed to me, which made a number of criticisms of him. I have made enquiries about those which are specific and established that these are not founded in fact.”

Central question

Key among the unanswered questions at the heart of this controversy is what role — if any — Ms Clarke might have had in the creation of the letter.

Our understanding is that the Governor’s initial explanation to Ms Clarke on November 12 suggested she would have been in line for the position eventually, subject to, in the Governor’s words, “a suggested transitional period” (though she was not named designate). But subsequent to this conversation, events unfolded that, in the Governor’s words from a December 2 statement, made it “untenable for the appointment to proceed”.

We have spoken to several sources very close to events and two sharply conflicting accounts emerge: one suggests a senior DPP figure was told by a subordinate that Ms Clarke had solicited them to sign the letter and the senior figure then reported this to the Governor (shortly after Ms Clarke had been told she was not getting an immediately promotion).

But another version of events — detailed in a legal document that we have seen — says Ms Clarke was first notified of the letter’s existence on November 15 — the day after it had been presented to the AG — and therefore had no role in its creation. 

The first scenario described above, we have been told, would help explain the Governor’s “untenable” remark; that is, the notion of Ms Clarke being party to a letter castigating her boss (and rival for the directorship), Mr Field. Also, we understand Government House was unhappy that Ms Clarke allegedly shared details of the Governor’s November 12 conversation with her in which he explained his decision not to immediately promote her. 

It seems clear that someone has not been not telling the truth about Ms Clarke’s role — or lack thereof — and the fallout from the letter appears to have inflamed matters (see story here).

The four-page letter to the Attorney General, dated November 13, is mostly about Mr Field. Some parts of the version we saw were redacted — due to the particularly sensitive nature of the material — and Ms Clarke is mentioned only briefly, towards the end: “Ms Clarke is Bermudian and hers would be a meritorious appointment which would save the government tens of thousands of dollars in perks currently being meted out to Mr Field, ie housing allowance, government car, expense payments when travelling to conferences abroad and other costs.”

The letter concludes with the eight signatories “strongly” objecting to an extension of Mr Field’s contract as DPP.