Gail Alexan­der

Se­nior Po­lit­i­cal Re­porter

The Be­yond the Tape pro­gramme is be­ing re­viewed, as the T&T Po­lice Ser­vice is dis­sat­is­fied with the pro­duc­tion—and there may be times when the show’s pre­sen­ter is a bit averse to the thoughts of the or­gan­i­sa­tion, says Com­mis­sion­er of Po­lice Er­la Hare­wood-Christo­pher.

And CoP Hare­wood-Christo­pher has al­so been ad­vised by Par­lia­ment’s Joint Se­lect Com­mit­tee on Na­tion­al Se­cu­ri­ty to charge busi­ness­es that sell unau­tho­rised “po­lice” wear—and al­so charge po­lice of­fi­cers who don’t wear body cam­eras.

These were among de­vel­op­ments at yes­ter­day’s Joint Se­lect Com­mit­tee (JSC) in­quiry with TTPS top brass.

JSC mem­ber Dr Paul Richards asked if there was a par­tic­u­lar man­date for the “Be­yond the Tape Show” that’s co-host­ed by act­ing se­nior su­per­in­ten­dent (Port-of-Spain Di­vi­sion) Roger Alexan­der. Richards said he had asked since, “very of­ten, I hear ut­ter­ances on that show that are in stark con­tra­dic­tion to what the po­lice lead­er­ship is say­ing.”

“It’s very sur­pris­ing. The po­lice lead­er­ship says one thing about gangs—the show is say­ing ‘we giv­ing the gangs a bligh’. Is there a man­date for the show and does it take in­struc­tion, pol­i­cy and pub­lic dis­sem­i­na­tion from the po­lice lead­er­ship? Be­cause every of­ten I’ve heard con­tra­dic­to­ry in­for­ma­tion from the po­lice lead­er­ship than to what I see on that show—and I don’t know which one to be­lieve,” Richards said.

Hare­wood-Christo­pher re­spond­ed, “The show should be a repli­ca of the thoughts and sen­ti­ments of the or­gan­i­sa­tion’s ex­ec­u­tive.”

Richards asked if that was hap­pen­ing.

The CoP said, “There may be at times when the pre­sen­ter is a bit ... averse to the thoughts of the or­gan­i­sa­tion.”

Richards in­ter­ject­ed, “The pre­sen­ter rep­re­sent­ing the TTPS on a na­tion­al broad­cast­ed very pop­u­lar show, in uni­form, and you’re telling us he is ‘averse’ to what the lead­er­ship is say­ing? That is a shock­ing rev­e­la­tion!”

Richards asked if she—as TTPS head—was sat­is­fied with what was com­ing out of the show.

Hare­wood-Christo­pher said, “At this time—no ... and ac­tu­al­ly the show is be­ing re­viewed. We’ve had dis­cus­sions.”

On crim­i­nal el­e­ments us­ing cloth­ing that ap­pear to be TTPS uni­form or ve­hi­cles with blue lights and sirens like TTPS ve­hi­cles, Hare­wood-Christo­pher said the TTPS had not­ed the sit­u­a­tion. She said it’s one of the av­enues in­to which the TTPS seeks to man­age and put some con­trol, and re­quest that po­lice of­fi­cers use their of­fi­cial grey and blue po­lice uni­form and ID badges; and to ap­point as nec­es­sary, the use of the op­er­a­tional wear.

“The op­er­a­tional wear is avail­able at some of our stores. What we need to do, that will be at the Gov­ern­ment lev­el: to put sanc­tions in place to con­trol the sale of these items,” she said.

JSC chair­man Kei­th Scot­land, said, “Madame Com­mis­sion­er, I’m cer­tain that op­er­a­tional wear is out­lawed. You can­not have cam­ou­flage or the wear of the pro­tec­tive ser­vices un­less au­tho­rised. So you don’t need any in­ter­ven­tion—charge! If there’s a chal­lenge, that’s why you have a judge and a mag­is­trate!”

Scot­land added, “Charge! Got to the stores, charge! Let the mag­is­trate and the judge de­cide. But the law is there to be im­ple­ment­ed. You’ll not be judge and ju­ry, you’re the pros­e­cu­tor.”

Scot­land ad­vised her that Sec­tion 62 of the Po­lice Ser­vice Act deals with cul­prits us­ing TTPS uni­form/gear and/or pre­tend­ing to be of­fi­cers. He said the penal­ty of $30,000 or three years in jail ought to be aug­ment­ed, but that’s a mat­ter for Par­lia­ment.

Scot­land added, “For now, you have the law that gives you the pow­er to charge. Once you know of these stores, wher­ev­er they may be sell­ing these items, go to them with your team and be ro­bust in pros­e­cu­tion.”