COME June 28, 2021, Chief Justice (CJ) (ag) Roxane George is expected to deliver her ruling in the challenge brought by five senior police officers against the Police Service Commission (PSC) over the 2020 year-end police promotions.
Initially, the CJ had set June 18, 2021, for ruling and/or clarification. However, during the Zoom hearing the CJ sought clarification from attorney Pratesh Satram, who is representing Senior Superintendent Calvin Brutus on issues regarding an application for leave to introduce new evidence, which he claims is the final 2020 promotion list by the PSC.
Satram is contending that suspended Chairman of the PSC retired Assistant Commissioner Paul Slowe recently made a statement during an interview confirming that there was a decision taken to promote Brutus and a list was finalised to the contrary. However, during the hearing he did not state the source of the interview.
When questioned by the CJ whether the promotion list was confirmed, the attorney said: “The evidence we seek to introduce will confirm it is the final list. There was a final list, whether this is that final list is a separate question. The PSC of course can confirm that, but they have refused to do so.”
The CJ reminded Satram that the PSC in its submission had said that the list was leaked, and his contentions now would be “premature.” In reply, Satram conceded that he could not confirm whether this was the confirmed 2020 year-end police promotions list.
The CJ is expected to make a ruling in the case on June 28, 2021, at 13:30hrs.
In December 2020, Brutus, Superintendents Ravindra Stanley and Shivpersaud Manni Bacchus; Assistant Superintendent Shavon Jupiter; and Inspector Prem Narine moved to the court against the PSC. Police officers Dennis Stephen, Hugh Winter, Monica Washington, Edmond Cooper, Kurleigh Simon Stanton, and Phillip Azore were admitted as interested parties in the case by the CJ. The CJ had granted a temporary order stopping the PSC from making its annual promotion of senior police officers for 2020.
On January 12, 2020, during a hearing in the case, Attorney General and Minister of Legal Affairs, Anil Nandlall, S.C., had disclosed that based on preliminary discussions with Slowe, the parties were on a “path to resolution.” However, this proved futile since both sides failed to reach an amicable solution, which resulted in the High Court going ahead with the hearing of the matter. Brutus in his legal documents claims that he was bypassed for a promotion due to an ongoing investigation. Brutus believes the action by the commission was irrational, unreasonable, arbitrary, and unlawful.
The senior cop is asking the court to grant a declaration that the policy of the PSC not to promote or consider for promotion, officers with pending disciplinary matters before it, is unlawful.
He is also asking for a declaration that he is entitled to be promoted to the rank of assistant Ccmmissioner of police. Further, he is seeking an Order of Certiorari quashing, nullifying and/or cancelling the decision of the PSC to deny him the appointment to the office of assistant commissioner of police.
He is also praying for an Order of Certiorari quashing, nullifying and/or cancelling the decision of the PSC to promote Cooper, Philip and Kurleigh Simon, who are all senior superintendents of police, to the office of assistant commissioner of police.
Lastly, he is asking the court to grant an Order of Mandamus compelling the commission to reconsider its decision not to promote him in accordance with law and his legitimate expectation.
RECOMMENDED
Five officers, Brutus, Wendell Blanhum, Ravindranauth Budhram, Errol Watts and Fazil Karimbaksh have been recommended for promotion by the commissioner of police. However, the PSC had decided to promote Blanhum, Budhram, Watts, Cooper, Azore and Simon to the rank of assistant commissioner of police.
“It has been the practice of the commission not to promote police officers with pending disciplinary complaints, regardless of the nature or seriousness of such complaints. Trivial and unsubstantiated complaints have been accorded the same weight as grave or serious allegations of indiscipline in denying promotion to those against whom disciplinary complaints have been lodged with the commission,” Brutus’ court documents stated. Brutus was appointed to the rank of senior superintendent in 2015. In October 2019, it was alleged by the deputy commissioner – administration, that Brutus had committed a breach of discipline. The commission appointed Assistant Commissioner Royston Andires-Junor, to investigate that allegation.
A breach-of-discipline notice was not served on Brutus until October 2020. The investigation has not progressed beyond the issuance of the breach-of-discipline notice.
In keeping with its practice, the commission purportedly refused and/or failed to consider and/or denied Brutus promotion to the office of assistant commissioner of police, relying on the said allegation of indiscipline. “The allegation is frivolous. The applicant knows of no other reason why he was denied the promotion he was recommended for,” the document stated.
According to the court documents, Cooper, Azore and Simon, who are being promoted outside of the recommendation of the commissioner of police, are under investigation for alleged disciplinary and/or criminal offences. The said officers were promoted to the rank of senior superintendent in the years 2016, 2017 and 2017 respectively, and were therefore junior to Brutus.
