Rhon­da Krys­tal Ram­bal­ly

A woman po­lice con­sta­ble, who was sus­pend­ed with full pay be­cause a mag­is­trate found her guilty of dis­or­der­ly be­hav­iour, won her case in the Court of Ap­peal. Adana Fay­ola Pe­ters was charged with two of­fences on No­vem­ber 22, 2004, for be­hav­ing in a dis­or­der­ly man­ner and un­law­ful­ly re­sist­ing ar­rest. Spe­cial Re­serve Po­lice Lennie Mc Queen laid the charges. Pe­ters was rep­re­sent­ed by Is­rael Khan SC, in­struct­ed by Daniel Khan, his son. The court heard on No­vem­ber 22 at the San­gre Grande Ed­u­ca­tion­al In­sti­tute, East­ern Main Road, San­gre Grande, around 4.45 pm Mc Queen heard Pe­ters shout­ing: "You call po­lice, me eh 'fraid no po­lice." She told Mc Queen: "Of­fi­cer, yuh stu­pid, I came here for my phone and I want it now. Ah not leav­ing here un­til ah get it."

State at­tor­ney Joan Hon­ore-Paul said the prin­ci­pal of the school re­port­ed the mat­ter to the San­gre Grande Po­lice and Mc Queen was de­tailed to in­ves­ti­gate. She said the en­tire school was dis­rupt­ed when Pe­ters was slap­ping a wall and stamp­ing her feet say­ing: "I want meh phone and ah want it now." The Court of Ap­peal, com­pris­ing Jus­tices Paula Mae Weekes and Al­ice Soo-Hon, heard the mag­is­trate had dis­missed the re­sist­ing ar­rest charge but found Pe­ters guilty of dis­or­der­ly be­hav­iour. A con­vic­tion was record­ed against Pe­ters but she was rep­ri­mand­ed and dis­charged. But her at­tor­neys said that con­vic­tion caused Pe­ters to be sus­pend­ed and if it re­mained she would be dis­missed from the Po­lice Ser­vice.

Hon­ore-Paul con­ced­ed the ap­peal should be al­lowed on the grounds that the mag­is­trate tried both cas­es with­out ob­tain­ing Pe­ters' con­sent but the ev­i­dence of dis­or­der­ly con­duct would sus­tain a find­ing of guilt. Jus­tice Weekes said the mat­ter should not be sent for tri­al be­cause it was six years old. She added there was no ev­i­dence that the school was dis­rupt­ed as a re­sult of Pe­ters' be­hav­iour. She said: "The State should not get two bites of the cher­ry." The Court of Ap­peal quashed the con­vic­tion, set­ting aside the mag­is­trate's or­der of rep­ri­mand and dis­charge.