The wrecking of vehicles for parking violations in T&T is generally unconstitutional. In 1948, the right to own and not be arbitrarily deprived of property was enshrined in article 17 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR). Since then, facsimiles of this article can be found in many Constitutions around the world. In T&T, this right is echoed in section 4(a) of the Constitution, with the annexation of something even more important–"except by due process of law."
"Due process" is the three-part system for all legal issues: (1) adequate notice, (2) an opportunity to be heard and (3) the right to appeal. What's limpid here is that rights are not arbitrary or negotiable; and therefore cannot be abrogated without just cause.
This brings me to the topic at hand; the ex parte decisions to wreck vehicles in T&T–or the more apropos appellation: the law with no recourse. According to the Motor Vehicle and Road Traffic Act (hereinafter referred to as "the Act"), section 108 gives a member of the police service, the permission to wreck a vehicle that is likely to cause an obstruction–powers based on subjectivity with no specific guidelines.
What is "likely," and what exactly is an "obstruction"? Is the definition under Rule 7 of Section 38 of the Act the ambiguous guideline the police are using?
Section 109(1) goes on to state that once wrecked, the vehicle will not be released until (a) the $300 removal charge and (b) a daily custody charge of $200 is paid in full in cash. It should also be noted here that the $200 daily custody charge rolls over at midnight, so if you get wrecked at 23.30 and get to the impound lot after your dinner/concert/show any time after midnight, you'll be paying $400 on top of the $300!
The removal charge goes to the "wrecker man" and the custody charge goes to the relevant Corporation, which according to the Act, should be going to the Commissioner of Police–a major discrepancy. Both Municipal Police (who aren't associated with the TTPS) and members of the TTPS accompany wreckers, yet the Corporations benefit.
On June 19, 2012, the T&T Guardian reported that "The Port-of-Spain City Corporation earns approximately $800,000 a month from wrecking illegally-parked cars on the city's streets. The revenue from wrecking in a single day can reach $85,000, and on a weekend brings in close to $200,000." This illustrates the lucrativeness of wrecking, not only for the privately-contracted wreckers, but for the Government.
When the wrecker man knows that he will collect $300 for every vehicle he wrecks, what would then be his main objective–wreck more, make more. Even a legally-parked vehicle with no witnesses around becomes fair game–$cha-ching! They don't have to prove that you were illegally parked and you can't prove that you were parked legally; and even if you could, you still have to pay to get your vehicle back and then what?
Who's responsible for hearing parking grievances? Or is section 5(2)(e) of the Constitution also an irrelevant piece of wording? What if the vehicle is damaged?
Now, let me address the most vocal of complaints by drivers: signage. According to the Act and its subsidiary legislation, parking is prohibited on certain streets at certain times, many of which do not have any signage. This is where the parking and wrecking scam begins: section 64(1)(b) is explicit in stating that no signs should be erected in reference to any parking order made under section 65, which is the section empowering the Minister responsible for transport to make laws regarding parking on any road.
As most of us may know, ignorance of the law is no excuse, but it is entirely unconscionable to expect drivers (what about tourists?) to know where and when to park without having to carry around the following regulations and peruse them before deciding to park at a specific location:
Road Traffic (Prohibited Parking) Order (GN 206/1979)
Miscellaneous Roads (Unilateral Parking) Order (GN 207/1979)
Miscellaneous Roads (Unilateral Alternate Parking) Order (GN 208/1979)
Private Motor Cars (Parking Places) Order (GN 214/1979)
Independence Square (Parking of Vehicles) Order (GN 220/1979)
South Quay (Parking of Vehicles) Order (GN 219/1979)
Broadway (Parking of Vehicles) Order (GN 218/1979)
Restriction of Parking (Public Buildings) Order (GN 56/1963)
I've written all of this and still haven't touched on the absurdity of walking around with measuring tape to measure the distance of nine metres (or in more common measurement terms: 354.3 inches/0.0005 miles/29.5 feet) from any corner or road intersection (Rule 5(10) under section 38 of the Act). I've heard police officers say that nine metres is approximately three car-lengths, so I decided to do this measurement myself.
Let's take one of the most popular cars in T&T; the length of a Nissan Almera is approximately 165 inches. Therefore, 354/165 is approximately two car lengths. However, thankfully, there are yellow lines and the white marks being painted now, but don't you dare let your bumper cross that line by a millimetre...otherwise yuh car gone!
We're not the only Commonwealth Caribbean country where wrecking is enshrined in law (See Barbados' Road Traffic Regulations, for example), but in their case, wrecking is done only when absolutely necessary, not as a business. In most cases, the wrecking of vehicles in T&T is illegal and only contributes to the weakening of the rule of law, while eliminating everyone's right to justice. "A threat to justice anywhere, is a threat to justice everywhere"–MLK Jr.
Alleviating the traffic and parking problems in T&T can only be solved with an efficient public transportation system. Building more roads and all the other asinine ideas are only political legerdemain: more roads aren't the solution...less cars is!
Jamille Broome
PhD candidate, LL.M, LL.B