Derek Achong

Se­nior Re­porter

derek.achong@guardian.co.tt

Six po­lice con­sta­bles have scored an­oth­er vic­to­ry in their al­most decade-long le­gal bat­tle over pro­mo­tions. 

De­liv­er­ing a judg­ment ear­li­er this week, High Court Judge West­min James up­held the case pur­sued by women po­lice con­sta­bles (WPCs) Jen­nifer Sanchez and Fe­li­cia Coar-Pasea, and po­lice con­sta­bles (PCs) Kwasi Guy, Cordell Abra­ham, Curt Gen­tle and Alex Khan against the Of­fice of the Po­lice Com­mis­sion­er and the Pro­mo­tion Ad­vi­so­ry Board (PAB). 

The six of­fi­cers sat and passed the qual­i­fy­ing ex­am­i­na­tion for pro­mo­tion to the rank of Cor­po­ral be­tween 2010 and 2015. 

Through their lawyers, led by at­tor­ney Leon Kalicha­ran, the group pur­sued a law­suit over a de­ci­sion to use a de­part­men­tal or­der from 2021 to as­sess them for pro­mo­tion. 

In 2024, the case was up­held and the judge found un­due de­lay by the PAB in con­sid­er­ing them for in­ter­view and di­rect­ed the board to re­con­sid­er their pro­mo­tions based on the “prop­er cri­te­ria.” 

The out­come was ap­pealed, but the chal­lenge was dis­missed by the Court of Ap­peal. 

The group was forced to file a sec­ond case as the of­fi­cers claimed the Po­lice Com­mis­sion­er’s Of­fice and the PAB did not abide by the out­come of the pre­vi­ous case and sought to re­ly on a de­part­men­tal or­der is­sued ear­li­er this year to re­con­sid­er their pro­mo­tion ex­am­i­na­tions. 

The group claimed that the new or­der sought to as­sess each of­fi­cer’s ex­am­i­na­tion com­po­nent by a pro­por­tion­al mark­ing scheme in­stead of a tiered scheme that was utilised when they sat the ex­am­i­na­tions. 

Jus­tice James re­ject­ed the com­mis­sion­er’s of­fice and the PAB claim that the of­fi­cers were not en­ti­tled to chal­lenge the ex­am­i­na­tion mark­ing scheme that had been in use since 2020, as they did not raise the is­sue in their first case. 

He found that the new case could pro­ceed as it was based on a re­con­sid­er­a­tion of their pro­mo­tions. 

“A fresh ex­er­cise of pub­lic pow­er is, in prin­ci­ple, open to fresh scruti­ny on any ground that prop­er­ly aris­es from it,” Jus­tice James said. 

He found that the group had a le­git­i­mate ex­pec­ta­tion that they would be as­sessed based on the 2007 cri­te­ria. 

How­ev­er, he re­ject­ed the of­fi­cers’ claim that they should have been ranked to­geth­er with the co­hort of of­fi­cers with whom they qual­i­fied in­stead of be­ing grouped with over 1,300 of­fi­cers who qual­i­fied over many years on a sin­gle list. 

He found that the of­fi­cers were award­ed com­pen­sa­tion for loss of op­por­tu­ni­ty in the first case based on the is­sue. 

Jus­tice James gave the PAB 60 days in which to re­cal­cu­late their ex­am­i­na­tion scores based on the 2007 cri­te­ria and to re­assess their po­si­tion on the mer­it list. 

He not­ed that the out­come of the case did not af­fect of­fi­cers who were pre­vi­ous­ly pro­mot­ed based on the orig­i­nal mer­it list and the amend­ed mer­it list would be utilised for fu­ture pro­mo­tions. 

Jus­tice James al­so di­rect­ed that a High Court Mas­ter con­sid­er whether they should be en­ti­tled to ad­di­tion­al com­pen­sa­tion. 

“A cor­rect­ed rank alone does not es­tab­lish an en­ti­tle­ment to pro­mo­tion and dam­ages,” he said. 

The of­fi­cers were al­so rep­re­sent­ed by Ka­ri­na Singh and Ke­ston Lewis.

The com­mis­sion­er’s of­fice and the PAB were rep­re­sent­ed by Rishi Dass, SC, Vanes­sa Gopaul and Anya Ra­mute-Mo­han.