Senior Reporter
jensen.lavende@guardian.co.tt
The attorney representing a 14-year-old who was knocked down along the Priority Bus Route (PBR), is accusing Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP) Roger Gaspard of acting irrationally for dropping charges against Deputy Police Commissioner Suzette Martin in the matter.
In a pre-action protocol dated December 25, attorney Keron Ramkhalawhan, of JurisX Chambers, said his clients were only informed of the decision through media reports and while it is within the legal remit of the DPP to drop charges at any given time, found it disturbing that common courtesy was not extended to the family of the teenage victim.
Ramkhalawhan questioned the decision to discontinue the case, after both the DPP’s office and the Police Complaints Authority (PCA) reviewed the evidence and found it was sufficient to warrant a charge.
“We are of the preliminary view that the DPP may have acted irrationally by ignoring highly relevant considerations such as (1) The views of the PCA, which is a statutory body mandated to, inter alia, recommend criminal and disciplinary charges against police officers; (2) The views of prosecutor in the DPP’s office that initially approved the charges and/or; (3) Public interest considerations and; (4) Views of the victim. In relation to (4), we are also of the preliminary view that the victim’s right to natural justice and protection of the law may have been contravened.”
In October last year, Martin, then head of the Professional Standards Bureau, the unit that investigates police misconduct, was charged with dangerous driving. The charge stemmed from incident at 8.30 am on April 18, 2023, along the PBR in the Croisee, San Juan. The then 13-year-old student was crossing the PBR when he was allegedly struck by an unmarked police vehicle driven by Martin and suffered fractures to his leg.
An investigation was conducted by the PCA and police and Martin was charged via summons and ordered to appear in court. The charge was laid by Assistant Commissioner of Police Wayne Mystar.
On December 16, Gaspard discontinued the matter. A day later, he explained, “The reason why the matter would have been discontinued is because having reviewed the evidence in the file, especially the CCTV footage, I was of the view that there was no fair prospect of conviction on that evidence. Put simply, the evidence is tenuous and there is a paucity of evidence.”
However, Ramkhalawhan found the DPP’s reasoning “somewhat illogical, unreasonable, and inexplicable,” as both the DPP and PCA were in possession of the footage and found sufficient evidence of a criminal offence.
He also accused the DPP’s office of not operating in good faith, saying: “The parents, as well as the child, were left to learn about the discontinuance solely through media reports. There was no request for a victim impact statement from the child or his mother, which ought to have factored in the Learned DPP’s decision.”
Ramkhalawhan requested seven documents from the DPP, failing which he will proceed with the lawsuit.
The documents include a detailed reason/s for the discontinuance; a copy of all files in the possession of the DPP in relation to the accident; copies of all CCTV footage in the possession of the DPP; copies of all unused material or statements collected and placed before the DPP prior to charge and after; and a copy of the minutes and/or correspondence detailing the request for reconsideration of the evidence and the dates of the meetings with the DPP by the complainant and/or other police officers. He gave the DPP up to January 24 to respond.
