JavaScript is disabled in your web browser or browser is too old to support JavaScript. Today almost all web pages contain JavaScript, a scripting programming language that runs on visitor's web browser. It makes web pages functional for specific purposes and if disabled for some reason, the content or the functionality of the web page can be limited or unavailable.

Wednesday, February 19, 2025

Continuing erosion of public trust in the police service

by

Guardian Media Limited
89 days ago
20241122

 

It’s dis­ap­point­ing and dis­con­cert­ing that in this pe­ri­od of high crime, a to­tal of 12 po­lice of­fi­cers in two sets of charges have been freed by the courts, not on the ba­sis of be­ing found in­no­cent of the al­le­ga­tions, but rather be­cause of a fail­ure of the pros­e­cut­ing teams to pro­vide the courts with suf­fi­cient and co­gent ev­i­dence against the of­fi­cers.

In one of the in­stances, five of­fi­cers of the North­ern Di­vi­sion Task Force were charged with ex­tor­tion, so­lic­it­ing $30,000 and five pounds of mar­i­jua­na from a cou­ple af­ter a search of their home.

In the oth­er mat­ter, sev­en po­lice of­fi­cers were charged for al­leged­ly seiz­ing cash from a busi­ness es­tab­lish­ment in San­gre Grande; a video is sup­posed to have shown the of­fi­cers in the act.

In both in­stances, the courts, faced with what was con­sid­ered to be the lack of suf­fi­cient qual­i­ty ev­i­dence pre­sent­ed by the pros­e­cut­ing teams, dis­missed the cas­es and freed the of­fi­cers. It is not a mat­ter of seek­ing to per­se­cute the of­fi­cers af­ter they were freed, but rather it’s an in­stance of the dis­played in­ca­pac­i­ty of the pros­e­cut­ing team to se­cure the ev­i­dence re­quired for the mat­ters to be pro­ceed­ed with.

As we have re­port­ed on these mat­ters, the pros­e­cu­tion did not pro­duce the ev­i­dence re­quired notwith­stand­ing the ex­tra time giv­en by the courts.

There are al­so ques­tions to be an­swered giv­en the re­quired and/or the usu­al pro­ce­dure adopt­ed that be­fore charges can be brought in se­ri­ous mat­ters, such as the above, the po­lice will have to get the go-ahead to pros­e­cute hav­ing pre­sent­ed the ev­i­dence to the Of­fice of the Di­rec­tor of Pub­lic Pros­e­cu­tions.

As far as we are aware, that pro­ce­dure was fol­lowed. So sure­ly, there is a need for clar­i­ty on what went on in the two in­stances.

With re­spect to the dis­pos­al of the cas­es on the ba­sis of the rul­ings by the courts, so un­ac­cept­able the sit­u­a­tion seems that Fi­nance Min­is­ter Colm Im­bert has open­ly ad­mit­ted, whether in jest or not, to be­ing shocked about the fail­ure of the pros­e­cu­tors to bring the hard ev­i­dence to the court for a de­ci­sion to be made.

Al­so shar­ing sim­i­lar con­cerns is the Min­is­ter in the Min­istry of Na­tion­al Se­cu­ri­ty, an ex­pe­ri­enced at­tor­ney in such mat­ters, MP Kei­th Scot­land.

Ac­cord­ing to what was said to re­porters about what is to hap­pen now to at least al­low the ev­i­dence to be dis­closed in court, there is room for an ap­peal and/or to re­in­state the charges against the of­fi­cers.

The re­al­ly dis­turb­ing out­come of these cas­es is the like­ly dent it will make in the pub­lic’s con­fi­dence in the ca­pac­i­ty of pros­e­cut­ing of­fi­cers to gath­er qual­i­ty ev­i­dence to bring be­fore the court. The cas­es al­so raise con­cerns about whether the po­lice were seek­ing to pro­tect their own from pros­e­cu­tion and can re­sult in fur­ther di­min­ish­ing of pub­lic trust in the po­lice ser­vice to deal in a fair, dili­gent and pro­fes­sion­al man­ner when their own are in­volved in al­leged crimes.

These are sure­ly not mat­ters that can be left with­out fur­ther in­ves­ti­ga­tion and even­tu­al full pros­e­cu­tion if war­rant­ed. 


Related articles

Sponsored

Weather

PORT OF SPAIN WEATHER

Sponsored