Stories by
Derek Achong
Senior Reporter
derek.achong@guardian.co.tt
A woman police constable (WPC) has been awarded $100,000 in compensation after she won a lawsuit challenging a move by the Police Service Examinations Board to rescind its decision to allow her to sit a promotional examination, several months after she completed it.
High Court Judge Carol Gobin upheld WPC Elicia Samaroo-Ali’s judicial review lawsuit against the board and the Office of the Commissioner of Police in August but only assessed the appropriate compensation for her on Tuesday.
According to the evidence in the case, Samaroo-Ali obtained a BSc in Information Systems and Management before joining the T&T Police Service (TTPS) in January 2019.
The following year, she applied to the board to be a candidate in the promotion examination for the rank of corporal but she was denied.
After completing her two-year probation period, Samaroo-Ali made another application which was approved by the board. She wrote the examination in September 2021 and was told she passed in January, last year.
However, in May last year, Samaroo-Ali was informed that she had been allowed to write the examination in error as only police officers with three years of service could be allowed to do so.
Samaroo-Ali’s lawyers, led by Senior Counsel Anand Ramlogan, argued that she could have written the examination but waited on the third anniversary in the service to be considered for promotion.
In defence of the case, lawyers for the board and the commissioner relied on a standing order issued by former police commissioner Hilton Guy, which set the experience required to sit the examination.
Justice Gobin ruled that the standing order was no longer valid as it was issued under the Police Service Act 1965 and is inconsistent with amendments passed by Parliament in 2006 and associated regulations.
“To put it simply, if Parliament intended to say that officers would not be permitted to sit the exam before the expiration of three years in the service it would have said so in Regulation 16 in the same way it imposed the limit in Regulation 17 for consideration for promotion,” Justice Gobin said.
“I think the claimants’ argument that one might pass the exam to make oneself eligible yet never be considered suitable for promotion makes the point, these are two distinct things.”
Justice Gobin ruled that the decision to rescind approval in Samaroo-Ali’s case was unlawful and was in breach of the principles of natural justice.
She also stated that Samaroo-Ali’s constitutional rights to protection of the law and equality of treatment from a public authority had been breached.
Justice Gobin also ordered that she be considered for promotion and placed on the promotion merit list as if she had been interviewed, last year.
In its submissions, lawyers for the board and the police commissioner claimed Samaroo was not entitled to compensation as she presented no evidence of suffering damage and the declarations granted by Justice Gobin were sufficient to vindicate the breach of her rights.
Justice Gobin disagreed as she noted that the board admitted other officers had suffered the same fate as Samaroo-Ali in the past.
“An admission that there were cracks through which nine officers slipped in a promotion process in the police service, followed by what I perceive to be an attempt to downplay the dereliction of somebody’s duty to ensure the integrity of the process, justifies an award of damages,” she said.
She noted that such an award would have a deterrent effect and promote greater accountability.
“Public confidence in the service generally and specifically in relation to the promotion process can only be secured when there is adherence to the processes prescribed by law and to the tenets of basic procedural fairness and transparency,” she said.
Justice Gobin also criticised the defendants for failing to launch an investigation into how the issue arose.
“The defendants did not seek to blame it on human error on the part of any particular officer, or a flaw in the system. Such was the level of apathy,” she said.
Justice Gobin ordered $75,000 in general damages and $25,000 in vindicatory damages.
The defendants were also ordered to pay Samaroo-Ali’s legal costs for the lawsuit.
Samaroo-Ali was also represented by Jayanti Lutchmedial, Kent Samlal, Robert Abdool-Mitchell, Natasha Bisram, and Vishaal Siewsaran.
The defendants were represented by Gilbert Peterson, SC, Kerwyn Garcia, SC, Allanna Rivas, and Tsonda Gayle.
