Nicholas Pedro Addresses BPS Dismissal
Nicholas Pedro — who was recently dismissed from the Bermuda Police Service – has provided a statement, saying he is doing so “reluctantly due to the intense media and general public interest in the circumstances of my dismissal from the Bermuda Police Service.”
The police had previously issued a statement confirming that a Superintendent had been dismissed, saying that “a panel found the officer guilty of conduct that was deemed incompatible with the high standards of integrity required for continued service within the BPS.”
Nicholas Pedro stated, “I am making this statement reluctantly due to the intense media and general public interest in the circumstances of my dismissal from the Bermuda Police Service.
“I am cognizant of the rationale of the Police Commissioner for making a public statement concerning my dismissal to address public confidence issues.
“However, the nature of their media release appears to not address the obvious metric that public confidence can only be properly addressed by informing the public of the true nature of events. Their media release and my subsequent identification in other media outlets did not seek to reassure the public of the events that actually transpired.
“Though I am limited in the extent of any comments I may wish to make at this time, I wish to put the matter into its true context.
“My dismissal followed various allegations made by the BPS that I had acted “dishonestly” and with a “hostile animus” towards another Officer who was under investigation for serious criminal offences.
“Those allegations were found to be unproven.
“A fellow Superintendent on secondment to the Professional Standards Department from the United Kingdom, was investigating two Officers suspected of serious criminal offences. However, the entire Professional Standards Department had at the time [December 2020], been placed in COVID Quarantine.
“I was instructed by the former Commissioner of Police [with the knowledge and tacit approval of the current Commissioner] to take on these matters as a Lawful Order. My fellow Superintendent [the Head of the Professional Standards Department] had provided me with information to obtain a Search Warrant for two individuals. Unbeknownst to me, that Information contained inaccuracies that I had no reason to doubt, given the trustworthiness and good offices of an experienced and senior fellow Officer of equal Rank.
“I was found against by the Panel following an honest mistake when a fellow Officer was swearing the information for the Search Warrant. My colleague had asked me to attend with him before the Magistrate in support due to the seriousness and sensitivity of the matter. The allegation that I acted dishonestly was found to be unproven.
“The Magistrate himself confirmed many months ago that I had played no part in the application for the Search Warrant. It has never been suggested I did.
“However, as I was present, I should have informed the Magistrate that I was referred to in the application.
“This was not a dishonest mistake, albeit my honest omission was viewed seriously.
“I had incorrectly understood that by remaining mute during the application [so as to not be accused of having attempted to influence the process], I could not be accused of trying to influence that part of the process as I did not actively participate in the application at Court.
“However with hindsight, I accept I had a responsibility to inform the Magistrate to address any perception of bias and my omission in not doing so breached the Standard of Integrity, and not Dishonesty. Any suggestion I was in any way biased was found to be unproven.
“I am grateful as a born Bermudian with centuries of family ties to the island, to have served my community with distinction for nearly 32 years, and look forward to new and greater challenges,” Mr Pedro added.
