Senior Reporter
derek.achong@guardian.co.tt
The Fire Service Association has lost a lawsuit challenging a decision by the Chief Fire Officer to issue instructions to fire officers on providing ambulance services.
In a 43-page judgment on Thursday, High Court Judge Robin Mohammed rejected the association’s case.
The outcome was largely based on evidence before Justice Mohammed that the T&T Fire Service (TTFS) was the country’s sole provider of ambulance services before the Government retained the private services of Global Medical Response of T&T (GMRTT) in 1985 and continued to provide services alongside the private operator.
The evidence indicated that between October 2014 and September 2017, the TTFS provided ambulance services 14,148 times and responded to 3,049 emergency calls.
Justice Mohammed said: “This argument, as constructed literally and inferred, is untenable in light of the court’s perspective on the deeply entrenched nature of the Chief’s delegated powers and the order merely commanding the continuation of a long-standing duty inherent in the responsibilities of a fire officer in the TTFS.”
In the lawsuit, the association challenged the legality of the official instruction issued by former chief fire officer Roosevelt Bruce in February 2018. The association contended that the instruction sought to circumvent the Emergency Ambulance Services and Emergency Medical Personnel Act, which mandates that a license is required from the Minister of Health to provide emergency ambulance services.
The association also pointed to the Medical Board Act, which prohibits individuals, except licensed medical practitioners, from performing medical treatments unless authorised under other legislation. It claimed that its members did not receive proper training to perform the functions of an emergency medical technician (EMT).
In defence of the case, the TTFS claimed the legislation did not preclude the move and detailed the training provided to officers. It also pointed to its long-standing role in providing such services.
In determining the case, Justice Mohammed noted that while there are differences in the roles played by fire officers and EMTs there is a convergence of duties when fire officers, within the broader context of emergency response, confront medical emergencies requiring immediate attention.
“Fire officers often undergo training in basic life support techniques, enabling them to deliver initial care until specialised medical personnel, such as EMTs, arrive on the scene,” he said.
“This overlap underscores the shared commitment to preserving life and ensuring public safety.”
Dealing with the applicability of the legislation cited by the association, Justice Mohammed noted that both did not infringe on Bruce’s discretion to issue the instructions related to ambulance services.
“It is highly improbable that T&T’s proficient legislative drafters would have drafted the pertinent sections with the intention of displacing existing ambulance services provided by the TTFS and its counterparts without incorporating necessary legislative safeguards, such as amending the Fire Service Act, repealing specific sections of the Fire Service Act, or including an additional provision explicitly prohibiting other public services,” he said.
Justice Mohammed also pointed out that the association did not challenge the TTFS’s evidence on the provided training.
“At this juncture, it is not for the court to suggest that the decision should have considered more or fewer factors regarding the adequacy of training for it to be deemed rational or legal,” he said.
As part of his decision, Justice Mohammed ordered the association to pay the legal costs incurred by the TTFS for defending the lawsuit.
Contacted yesterday, the association’s president Keone Guy declined to say whether it would appeal the outcome.
“I am not in a position to comment at this time,” he said.
The association was represented by Hyacinth Griffith, while Rishi Dass, SC, Tenille Ramkissoon, and Michelle Benjamin represented the TTFS.