KEVON FELMINE

Se­nior Re­porter

kevon.felmine@guardian.co.tt

Even as the T&T Po­lice Ser­vice (TTPS) has en­gaged Di­rec­tor of Pub­lic Pros­e­cu­tions (DPP) Roger Gas­pard re­gard­ing the alarm­ing col­lapse of two cas­es in­volv­ing ex­tor­tion and cor­rup­tion against po­lice of­fi­cers, the Po­lice Com­plaints Au­thor­i­ty (PCA) has launched in­ves­ti­ga­tions in­to the break­down.

TTPS Cor­po­rate Com­mu­ni­ca­tions man­ag­er Joanne Archie told Guardian Me­dia that a team of of­fi­cers was li­ais­ing with the DPP on the is­sue, and the TTPS was await­ing the out­come. Archie said the TTPS would is­sue a pub­lic state­ment once this en­gage­ment is con­clud­ed.

In a me­dia re­lease yes­ter­day, the PCA not­ed that the dis­missal of the two cas­es led to the dis­charge of 12 po­lice of­fi­cers this week due to a lack of ev­i­dence and the ab­sence of po­lice pros­e­cu­tors. The PCA high­light­ed that there were no pros­e­cu­tion wit­ness­es and no ev­i­dence pre­sent­ed by the po­lice in court. These high-pro­file and se­ri­ous crim­i­nal mat­ters were ini­tial­ly han­dled by the Pro­fes­sion­al Stan­dards Bu­reau (PSB).

The PCA said the dis­missals fol­low nu­mer­ous re­fer­rals for dis­ci­pli­nary ac­tion and re­peat­ed ad­vice giv­en by the au­thor­i­ty to the com­mis­sion­ers of po­lice over the past 13 years.

“These in­ves­ti­ga­tions re­fer to mat­ters where po­lice com­plainants fail to at­tend court, fail to com­ply with the court’s di­rec­tives, and fail to ad­here to their own stand­ing or­ders. As a re­sult, the PCA has sub­mit­ted these cas­es to the in­ves­tiga­tive and le­gal units of the PCA for im­me­di­ate ac­tion,” the PCA stat­ed.

Speak­ing fur­ther, PCA Di­rec­tor David West told Guardian Me­dia, “The CoP is in charge of the TTPS, and she is the per­son to whom we pro­vide our ad­vice re­gard­ing mat­ters in­volv­ing of­fi­cers.”

He added that the PCA does not have the pow­er to ar­rest, de­tain, or sum­mon of­fi­cers for ques­tion­ing and must ob­tain the CoP’s per­mis­sion to car­ry out these pro­ce­dures.

“We will in­ves­ti­gate the case our­selves, and if we ar­rive at a rec­om­men­da­tion or re­fer­ral, we send it to the Com­mis­sion­er of Po­lice. It is then up to her to take ac­tion.”

Asked what steps the PCA can take if a CoP re­fus­es to act, West said the PCA can write to the Po­lice Ser­vice Com­mis­sion, ref­er­enc­ing in­stances where ad­vice was giv­en but not act­ed up­on. He not­ed, how­ev­er, that this is­sue has per­sist­ed across sev­er­al CoP tenures. He de­clined to com­ment on whether the PCA had writ­ten to the Po­lice Ser­vice Com­mis­sion in the past.

Re­spond­ing to the PCA’s in­ves­ti­ga­tion, Po­lice So­cial Wel­fare As­so­ci­a­tion (TTP­SWA) Vice Pres­i­dent Ag ASP Ish­mael Pitt said the au­thor­i­ty has to per­form its du­ty, and mem­bers have no is­sue with that. He added that dur­ing this process, the TTP­SWA will en­sure the wel­fare of all of­fi­cers in­volved. Pitt not­ed that the TTP­SWA has not yet con­duct­ed a de­tailed analy­sis of the cas­es.

As­sem­bly of South­ern Lawyers: Im­pose dis­ci­pli­nary ac­tions on po­lice of­fi­cers

Pres­i­dent of the As­sem­bly of South­ern Lawyers, Saira Lakhan, be­lieves the TTPS should im­pose dis­ci­pli­nary ac­tions on po­lice of­fi­cers who fail to at­tend court with­out a valid rea­son, lead­ing to the dis­missal of crim­i­nal cas­es. Lakhan said such in­ci­dents un­der­mine pub­lic trust in the jus­tice sys­tem and com­pro­mise ef­forts to en­sure ac­count­abil­i­ty and jus­tice for all. She added that it al­so erodes con­fi­dence in the TTPS.

“They should have fur­ther reg­u­la­tions or poli­cies, if these are not al­ready in place, stip­u­lat­ing dis­ci­pli­nary ac­tions. These should in­clude po­ten­tial sus­pen­sion, fines, or oth­er cor­rec­tive mea­sures with­in the TTPS, en­sur­ing con­se­quences for po­lice of­fi­cers fail­ing to at­tend court. I al­so be­lieve there should be en­hanced mon­i­tor­ing and re­port­ing by TTPS of­fi­cers with court mat­ters,” Lakhan said.

She added that the TTPS should as­sign su­per­vi­sors to en­sure of­fi­cers at­tend court. These su­per­vi­sors would be ac­count­able for of­fi­cers’ at­ten­dance in court. Fur­ther­more, she said of­fi­cers who at­tend court would be aware of their next hear­ing date and their du­ty to the court.

While the DPP’s of­fice has state pros­e­cu­tors, Lakhan ex­plained that there is a tiered sys­tem where po­lice of­fi­cers pros­e­cute sum­ma­ry of­fences, while state pros­e­cu­tors han­dle more se­ri­ous mat­ters. How­ev­er, she ar­gued that state pros­e­cu­tors should lead pro­ceed­ings in cas­es in­volv­ing po­lice of­fi­cers.