Senior Reporter
derek.achong@guardian.co.tt
A Senior High Court Judge has come to the defence of a colleague, who issued a now-controversial judgment over delays by Police Commissioner Erla Harewood-Christopher in deciding on Firearm User’s Licence (FUL) applications.
The judge issued the comments, under the condition of anonymity, after Prime Minister Dr Keith Rowley suggested the High Court Judge Frank Seepersad went overboard in criticising Harewood-Christopher’s conduct while responding to a question at his Conversations with the Prime Minister at Exodus Steel Orchestra panyard in Tunapuna on Tuesday night.
The judge noted that the lawsuit, brought by a Tobago businessman over an almost three-year delay in deciding his FUL application, was against Harewood-Christopher’s office and not the Office of the Attorney General, as under the Firearms Act, the police commissioner has the sole discretion to decide on FUL applications.
“It is therefore odd and inappropriate for the Prime Minister to attack the judge and he is not in a position to say that the judge went a ‘bit overboard’,” the judge said.
The judge also defended Justice Seepersad’s decision to recommend a review of the country’s legal firearm policy in light of the country’s violent crime rate.
“It is clear when one reads the judgment that the judge simply suggested a policy review based on the prevailing societal state and there was no usurping of the role vested in the executive and the Parliament,” the judge said.
In his judgment, Justice Seepersad stated that deciding on FUL applications is a core function of Harewood-Christopher’s job.
“It is simply outrageous that a sitting Commissioner would elect to adopt a, “Well I have plenty work to do” stance, in defence of the delay which has transpired in this case,” Justice Seepersad said.
“To suggest that one core function is more important than another is a classic “cop-out” stance which does not instil any confidence as to the office holder’s capacity or capability to discharge the required statutory obligations,” he added.
Dealing with claims from Harewood-Christopher’s lawyers that the delay was partially due to over 25,000 pending applications, Justice Seepersad pointed out that she failed to adduce evidence over the efficiency of the application process.
He suggested that the current system may be duplicitous, as similar investigations are conducted before and after an applicant is issued with a provisional FUL to allow them to complete competency certification.
“After a thorough background check is engaged, inclusive of a medical and physiological assessment, it would be reasonable and rational to conclude that the provisional licence would enable firearm training and the generation of a certificate of competence and if no such certificate is issued, then a FUL cannot be given,” he said.
Justice Seepersad also rejected the suggestion that the COVID-19 pandemic contributed to the delay.
“The continued use of the COVID pandemic as a crutch for the absence of efficiency post 2021 also lacks merit,” he said.
Referring to two audits of the T&T Police Service (TTPS) Firearms Unit, Justice Seepersad said: “Coming out of the audits mentioned, steps ought to have been taken to address identified areas of concern in relation to FUL licences and proper administrative systems together with adequate manpower should have been implemented.”
Justice Seepersad also suggested that consideration of widening the pool of FUL holders may be required because of the country’s high crime rate.
“The playing field should be levelled and the defenceless should be given a ‘fighting’ chance,” he said.
“The ability to have a lawfully obtained firearm can no longer be viewed as status symbol but must be seen as a tool to ensure survival,” he added.
Commenting on the case, Rowley said the “excuses” attributed to Harewood-Christopher were presented by a member of her legal team and not her directly.
“I have been taken to court on many occasions as Prime Minister. Nobody is going to court representing me on any affidavit unless I know what is being said there,” he said.
He also pointed out that the case demonstrated the need of the State to have competent legal representatives.
“There are such serious implications that the Government must always be represented by proper high-level, competent lawyers. Some other lawyers who make the court a business of knocking the Government down are quite happy when a lawyer could settle an affidavit like that and go and tell the court what you just read out there,” Rowley said.
Rowley also noted that the judges did not have the power to make national policy including on firearms.
“Activist judges who speak as though they could make the policy and guide public servants what to do, I am saying that the Government’s policy ought to be respected. The Government has no policy to arm the population, like Gary Griffith has been doing and advocating in the political arena. A PNM Government has a different approach,” he said.