A re­tired po­lice of­fi­cer has won his law­suit over a move by the Of­fice of the Po­lice Com­mis­sion­er to re­clas­si­fy his ex­tend­ed in­jury leave af­ter his re­tire­ment in 2022. 

De­liv­er­ing a judg­ment on Mon­day, High Court Judge Kevin Ram­cha­ran up­held re­tired Sgt Wren­wick Theophilus’ case over the move, which re­sult­ed in $217,902.13 be­ing de­duct­ed from the pen­sion and gra­tu­ity he re­ceived up­on re­tire­ment. 

Theophilus joined the T&T Po­lice Ser­vice (TTPS) in 1988 and re­tired in No­vem­ber 2022. 

He was shot in his left knee while on du­ty in April 1994.

While re­cov­er­ing from the in­jury, Theophilus sub­mit­ted med­ical cer­tifi­cates and was grant­ed paid leave. 

In No­vem­ber 2000, Theophilus was in­volved in a se­ri­ous car ac­ci­dent while on du­ty. 

He sus­tained in­juries to his back, which re­sult­ed in him be­ing as­sessed as be­ing 20 per cent per­ma­nent­ly par­tial­ly dis­abled. 

Theophilus again sub­mit­ted med­ical cer­tifi­cates and was grant­ed paid leave. 

In Oc­to­ber 2019, for­mer po­lice com­mis­sion­er Gary Grif­fith wrote to Theophilus in­form­ing him that his pre­vi­ous pe­ri­ods of paid leave were re­clas­si­fied as ex­tend­ed sick leave with­out pay and ab­sent with­out pay. 

In April 2022, he re­ceived an­oth­er cor­re­spon­dence in­di­cat­ing that he had failed to show that his claimed low­er back in­jury was con­sis­tent with what he sus­tained in the ac­ci­dent. 

In late 2023, Theophilus was in­formed that the de­duc­tion from his pen­sion and gra­tu­ity would be made, as he had been over­paid in the past based on the leave re­clas­si­fi­ca­tion. 

In de­ter­min­ing the case, Jus­tice Ram­cha­ran had to con­sid­er the ef­fect of Reg­u­la­tion 94 of the Po­lice Ser­vice Reg­u­la­tions. 

It states, “Where an of­fi­cer is in­jured in the per­for­mance of his of­fi­cial du­ty, he is en­ti­tled to his re­mu­ner­a­tion for any leave ap­proved by the Com­mis­sion­er as a re­sult of such in­jury or un­til he is dis­charged by a Med­ical Board.”

Jus­tice Ram­cha­ran not­ed that the leave of in­jured of­fi­cers must be ap­proved by the po­lice com­mis­sion­er, while the board de­ter­mines whether an of­fi­cer should be dis­charged based on their in­jury. 

He ruled that the com­mis­sion­er must ex­er­cise the dis­cre­tion rea­son­ably based on med­ical ev­i­dence. 

Jus­tice Ram­cha­ran found that the re­clas­si­fi­ca­tion was un­rea­son­able, ir­ra­tional and un­law­ful.

He al­so found that Theophilus’ con­sti­tu­tion­al rights to the en­joy­ment of prop­er­ty ex­cept by due process of law and pro­tec­tion of the law were breached. 

Jus­tice Ram­cha­ran is­sued a se­ries of de­c­la­ra­tions over the re­clas­si­fi­ca­tion and or­dered that Theophilus be paid the sum that was with­held. 

The State was al­so or­dered to pay $50,000 in vin­di­ca­to­ry dam­ages and Theophilus’ le­gal costs for the law­suit. 

Theophilus was rep­re­sent­ed by at­tor­ney Mar­tin George.