Court Hears WORC Emails Went To The Wrong Address Before Employer Was Charged Over Worker’s Overstay

By Alric Lindsay

A woman is being prosecuted over the immigration overstay of a person she employed, in a case that turns partly on emails the court was told never reached Workforce Opportunities and Residency Cayman because an address had been auto-corrected.

The matter came before the Chief Magistrate in the Summary Court on August 25, 2026 and was adjourned to September 22, 2026, with the Chief Magistrate encouraging both sides to discuss whether it needs to proceed at all.

Setting out the issues, defence counsel, Richard Barton, indicated that, to prove the offence, it would be necessary for Crown Counsel for the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions to show whether the woman intentionally caused the person she employed to overstay.

Defence counsel explained that the woman had been corresponding with WORC for several months without reply could hardly be said to have formed an intention to bring about an overstay.

Defence counsel added that when WORC requested pension documents, these were supplied “within the very day” WORC asked for them. Therefore, his client did what was requested by WORC.

Then came the detail that gave the argument its edge. The correspondence, defence counsel said, had gone to an address ending “WORK” rather than “WORC” — a spelling that autocorrect had produced and that nobody had caught.

Defence counsel then raised a point of public interest, asking whether a woman with no criminal history should face a criminal charge “in circumstances where she was clearly trying her very best”.

Responding to defence counsel, DPP Crown Counsel said he had reached out to WORC in preparation for the hearing and would disclose the papers to the defence, which he said could be done the same day. He accepted there should be discussions.

After hearing from DPP Crown Counsel and defence counsel, the Chief Magistrate noted that it appeared that, on the face of it, there was no intention of breaking the law.

DPP Crown Counsel responded saying he noted the difference between how WORC saw the background and how the defence had outlined it, and said the matter required discussion between the parties.

While discussions are expected to continue, the parties are scheduled to return to court on September 22, 2026.