Ombudsman Sides With The Court, Which Partially Denied A Request To Provide Data Confirming The Number Of Caymanians Versus Tourists Convicted Of Gun & Ammunition Offences
|
Getting your Trinity Audio player ready...
|
By Alric Lindsay
On October 31, 2025, the Office of the Ombudsman issued its decision in Hearing 107-202500113, relating to a request for data on the number of tourists versus Caymanians convicted of gun and/or ammunition possession. The purpose of the request was to understand the extent of any discrepancies in the treatment of Caymanians and tourists for similar offences. The court partially denied the data request, finding that providing the information would be an unreasonable diversion of resources. The Ombudsman agreed, which is a decision which now leaves members of the public in the dark about the reasons that the courts frequently declare that “exceptional circumstances” exist for tourists who import guns and bullets. Further, tourists are routinely fined and serve no prison time, while many Caymanians face prison time.
Chronology
On December 9, 2024, a freedom of information request was sent to the courts. The records requested related to importation and/or possession of guns and/or ammunition from 2019 to 2024.
The following information was requested:
1. Total Number of Convictions
Records confirming the total number of individuals convicted of importation and/or possession of guns and/or ammunition from 2019 to 2024.
2. Breakdown by Citizenship
Records showing the number of these convictions that were for Caymanians.
Records showing the number of these convictions that were for non-Caymanians.
3. Sentencing Information
Records showing the number of years imprisonment received for Caymanians.
Records showing the number of years imprisonment received for non-Caymanians.
4. No convictions recorded
Records showing the number of cases where no convictions were recorded for Caymanians.
Records showing the number of cases where no convictions were recorded for non-Caymanians.
5. Reasons for no convictions
Records showing reasons for not recording convictions against non-Caymanians.
6. Demographic Information
Records confirming demographic information (age, gender, nationality) for query number 4 above.
The court requested a 30-day extension of time to respond, citing that “it is taking longer than expected to answer your request for information.”
On January 17, 2025, the court responded as follows:
1. Total Number of Conviction related to importation and/or possession of guns from 2019-2024.
The data reveals the total number of conviction related to importation and/or possession of guns from 2019-2024 is 240.
2. Break down by citizenship
The data does not to determine who is Caymanian or foreign nationals. The data does not disclose this information by nationality, however, please see information in relation to same.
The Criminal Registry cannot review all applications from 2019 to the present to extract the requested information, as doing so would represent an unreasonable diversion of resources.
Accessing the records manually to determine whether the information can be obtained from the supporting documents would require a substantial, lengthy, and labour-intensive effort for this office.
3. Sentencing Information
The data does not disclose this information by nationality, however, please see information in relation to the number of years imprisonment received overall. The Criminal Registry cannot review all applications from 2019 to the present to extract the requested information, as doing so would represent an unreasonable diversion of resources. Accessing the records manually to determine whether the information can be obtained from the supporting documents would require a substantial, lengthy, and labour-intensive effort for this office.
4. No conviction recorded
The data does not disclose this information by nationality, however, please see information in relation to same The Criminal Registry cannot review all applications from 2019 to the present to extract the requested information, as doing so would represent an unreasonable diversion of resources. Accessing the records manually to determine whether the information can be obtained from the supporting documents would require a substantial, lengthy, and labour-intensive effort for this office.
5. Reason for no conviction
The data does not disclose this information by nationality, however, please see information in relation to same. The Criminal Registry cannot review all applications from 2019 to the present to extract the requested information, as doing so would represent an unreasonable diversion of resources.
Accessing the records manually to determine whether the information can be obtained from the supporting documents would require a substantial, lengthy, and labour-intensive effort for this office.
6. Demographic Information
The data does not disclose this information by nationality, however, please see information below in relation to same. The Criminal Registry cannot review all applications from 2019 to the present to extract the requested information, as doing so would represent an unreasonable diversion of resources.
Accessing the records manually to determine whether the information can be obtained from the supporting documents would require a substantial, lengthy, and labour-intensive effort for this office.
On January 17, 2025, a request for an internal review of the court’s decision was made.
Further, on January 29, 2025, an email was sent to the courts stating as follows:
To avoid what is stated as “an unreasonable diversion of resources” and “a substantial, lengthy, and labour-intensive effort for this office”, please note that I would be happy to manually review all files myself with the Court’s permission. I am available daily from 830am to 10am and 2pm to 5pm. Please confirm whether this is feasible.
The court responded on February 14, 2025, stating as follows:
I have reviewed the matter in accordance with section 34 of the Freedom of Information Act (2020 Revision).and pursuant to your request for an internal review, I confirm that this review has now taken place. Your original request was considered, and my findings under the internal review process align with the conclusions previously communicated to you by the FOI Manager and are appropriate under the provisions of the Act in that this task would require a considerable amount of time and manpower beyond the resources currently available to the Courts pursuant to section (9) of the Freedom of Information Act (2020 Revision).
The court added:
I have considered the further representations by the applicant and find that the Court staff would still be required to review each file manually to identify and remove any confidential or sealed documents before making the files available for review and addressing their minds to any potential data protection issues that may arise. This task would require a considerable amount of time and manpower beyond the resources currently available to the Courts pursuant to section (9) of the Freedom of Information Act (2020 Revision).
You have the right under section 42 of the Freedom of Information Law to appeal to the Office of the Ombudsman…
On February 14, 2025, the court’s decision was appealed to the Ombudsman.
On March 25, 2025, after liaising with the Office of the Ombudsman, the court responded as follows:
Further to your request made on 9th December 2024, please be advised that the Ombudsman Office has directed that you narrow the scope of your application for information. This will allow the Courts to review your application afresh to determine whether we can comply with your request.
Although the scope of the request was narrowed to 2022 to 2024 rather than 2019 to 2024, the court still refused it. On May 21, 2025, the court said:
Further to your email wherein you have narrowed your request by years, please also note that even in its “narrowed” state, it will require considerable time and manpower beyond the resources currently available to the Courts, as contemplated by section (9) of the Freedom of Information Act (2020 Revision).
Additionally, although the Applicant has made further representation that he would manually identify each file and review them himself, again, we have to express there are substantial concerns of potential data protection issues that may arise, therefore, the staff would again, be tasked with the labour intensive human resources and considerable time beyond the resources currently available to the Courts to ensure all files are sanitized for the applicant review.
Subsequently, a request was made for the Office of the Ombudsman to conduct a formal hearing to appeal the court’s decision.
Ombudsman’s decision
On August 18, 2025, the Office of the Ombudsman indicated dates for a hearing.
Various submissions were made to the Office of the Ombudsman, which set an initial decision date of October 2, 2025.
However, the decision date was pushed back. The Office of the Ombudsman explained the delay as follows:
Dear Parties,
Please see the attached letter concerning the extension of Hearing 107-202500113.
Kindly note that the extension is being applied for several factors, including limited staffing resources as our Office is experiencing high case volumes across both divisions, and recent public engagement initiatives, some of which require the direct and prompt attention of the Ombudsman.
We appreciate your understanding in this matter. We would be grateful if you could confirm receipt of this correspondence.
On October 31, 2025, the Office of the Ombudsman issued a final decision letter stating as follows:
I find that:
• The Authority met its burden of proof under section 43(2).
• Compliance would unreasonably divert resources; refusal under section 9(c) is upheld.
The Ombudsman concluded:
Decision: The appeal is dismissed. The Authority is not required to comply with the request under section 9(c) of the FOI Act.
Recommendation: The Authority should review its record-keeping practices to ensure compliance with section 6 of the National Archive and Public Records Act and consider implementing systems that allow efficient retrieval of conviction and sentencing data. Improved records management would enhance transparency, in the spirit of the Act, and reduce the likelihood of similar refusals in the future.
Note to readers:
While the court’s response to the freedom of information request stated that the data held does not determine who is Caymanian or a foreign national, it is a fact that, in every court case, the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions states nationalities in open court. Nationality is also stated in indictments and statements of offence, all of which the court maintains.
If it is the case that the court’s staff would “be tasked with the labour intensive human resources and considerable time beyond the resources currently available to the Courts,” this raises serious issues about the sufficiency of the court’s resources to complete what should be a basic exercise.
In addition, members of the public should be concerned about the length of time it takes for freedom of information requests to be processed. In this case, it took almost a year. The Freedom of Information Act should be amended in this regard, reducing the timeframe for a response and also removing provisions which allow arms of government to block transparency.
For a copy of the FOI, please see the file below:
For a copy of the appeal to the Ombudsman, please see the file below:
For a copy of detailed submissions to the Ombudsman arguing for transparency, please see the files below:
For a copy of the Ombudsman’s final decision letter, please see the file below:
