sto­ries by Derek Achong

Se­nior Re­porter

derek.achong@guardian.co.tt

A Spe­cial Re­serve Po­lice (SRP) of­fi­cer has failed in his at­tempt to chal­lenge a decade-long de­lay in re­call­ing him af­ter he was freed of rob­bing two se­cu­ri­ty guards and shoot­ing at two col­leagues in 2014.

Late last month, High Court Judge Bet­sy-Ann Lam­bert-Pe­ter­son re­fused An­gus Ram­sun­dars­ingh leave to pur­sue a ju­di­cial re­view case against the Of­fice of the Com­mis­sion­er of Po­lice.

In Au­gust 2012, Ram­sun­dars­ingh, of Ves­signy Vil­lage, La Brea, was slapped with six crim­i­nal charges.

Ram­sun­dars­ingh, who en­list­ed as an SRP in 2006, was ac­cused of rob­bing two se­cu­ri­ty guards of a to­tal of $540,000 and two li­censed re­volvers at Craig­nish Vil­lage, Princes Town.

He was al­so ac­cused of firearm and am­mu­ni­tion pos­ses­sion and of shoot­ing at two col­leagues at M1 Tasker Road, Princes Town.

He was di­rect­ed by the then-po­lice com­mis­sion­er to cease per­form­ing his du­ties un­til his case was de­ter­mined.

In 2014, the charges against him were dis­missed.

He made nu­mer­ous re­quests to the Po­lice Com­mis­sion­er’s Of­fice to re­turn to work be­fore he filed the law­suit last year.

Al­though he was even­tu­al­ly re­called by Po­lice Com­mis­sion­er Er­la Hare­wood-Christo­pher in Sep­tem­ber last year, he still con­tin­ued his case in which he was seek­ing the salary and ben­e­fits he would have re­ceived had he not been charged and di­rect­ed to cease per­form­ing du­ties.

In de­fence of the law­suit, the T&T Po­lice Ser­vice (TTPS) claimed that it was with­out mer­it.

It not­ed that un­der the Po­lice Ser­vice Reg­u­la­tions, nor­mal of­fi­cers charged with crim­i­nal of­fences are sus­pend­ed when fac­ing crim­i­nal charges.

If they even­tu­al­ly suc­cess­ful­ly de­fend the charges, they are re­in­stat­ed and paid the salary and ben­e­fits that were with­held since their sus­pen­sion.

It claimed that SRPs, who are gov­erned by the SRP Act, are in­stead placed on ces­sa­tion and may be re­called if they are freed of the charges.

It al­so con­tend­ed that SRPs are not en­ti­tled to their salary and ben­e­fits while ceas­ing to be on ac­tive du­ty.

In de­cid­ing whether Ram­sun­dars­ingh should be al­lowed to pur­sue the law­suit, Jus­tice Lam­bert-Pe­ter­son ruled that he did not have an ar­guable case as Hare­wood-Christo­pher had not made a de­ci­sion in re­la­tion to him when he filed it.

She al­so not­ed that he was sub­se­quent­ly re­called.

“There was no dis­cernible prac­ti­cal pur­pose for grant­i­ng leave to re­view “a de­ci­sion,” when no de­ci­sion ex­ist­ed at the time of the fil­ing of the ap­pli­ca­tion for leave,” she said.

She al­so ruled that he could not pur­sue the as­pect of his case re­lat­ed to his salary and ben­e­fits, as she agreed with the rea­son­ing put for­ward by the TTPS.

“The ap­pli­cant was not en­ti­tled to re­ceive salary and al­lowances dur­ing the pe­ri­od of his ces­sa­tion of em­ploy­ment from the TTPS,” she said.

Ram­sun­dars­ingh was rep­re­sent­ed by Ken­neth Thomp­son, while Adi­ta Ram­du­lar and Leah Men­doza rep­re­sent­ed the po­lice com­mis­sion­er.