Derek Achong

Se­nior Re­porter

derek.achong@guardian.co.tt

High Court Judge Frank Seep­er­sad has en­cour­aged cit­i­zens to con­tin­ue to record ques­tion­able con­duct by po­lice of­fi­cers whilst they are on du­ty.

Jus­tice Seep­er­sad made the call yes­ter­day, as he up­held a wrong­ful ar­rest and ma­li­cious pros­e­cu­tion law­suit brought by a T&T Reg­i­ment of­fi­cer, who was charged with as­sault­ing a po­lice of­fi­cer af­ter he at­tempt­ed to record him (the of­fi­cer) with his cell­phone dur­ing a traf­fic stop in 2020.

Seep­er­sad said in the ab­sence of leg­is­la­tion to hold er­rant po­lice of­fi­cers per­son­al­ly ac­count­able for ma­li­cious pros­e­cu­tions, the manda­to­ry use of body cam­eras should be pri­ori­tised.

“Con­tem­po­ra­ne­ous record­ings pro­vide the best ev­i­dence and pro­tects all the par­ties in­volved,” Jus­tice Seep­er­sad said.

“Un­til this is done, CCTV cam­eras and cell­phones must be used to record all in­ter­ac­tions be­tween cit­i­zens and the po­lice and cit­i­zens are urged to use their phones to record all mat­ters which in­volve breach­es of the law and the man­ner in which the po­lice en­gage the pub­lic,” he added.

While ac­knowl­edg­ing that some of­fi­cers seem to be re­sis­tant to be­ing record­ed by cit­i­zens, Jus­tice Seep­er­sad sug­gest­ed that this would im­prove trans­paren­cy and pub­lic trust and con­fi­dence in the T&T Po­lice Ser­vice (TTPS).

“Ac­count­abil­i­ty is re­quired at every lev­el of the so­ci­ety and should not be re­sist­ed or feared...The re­sis­tance to ac­count­abil­i­ty of­ten sug­gests that things are awry,” he said.

“There is an ap­palling fail­ure, root­ed in ei­ther in­com­pe­tence, non­cha­lance, or com­pla­cen­cy, by the lead­er­ship of the TTPS to bol­ster the pub­lic’s trust in the ser­vice and to cor­rect the crass and dis­re­spect­ful man­ner in which far too many of­fi­cers in­ter­act with cit­i­zens.”

He said the courts would con­tin­ue to up­hold valid cas­es by cit­i­zens in an ef­fort to hold of­fi­cers ac­count­able.

“Those who en­force the law must al­ways act with­in its re­mit and be­have pro­fes­sion­al­ly and re­spon­si­bly,” he added.

In the law­suit, Lance Cor­po­ral El­ton King sued over an in­ci­dent in April 2020.

King was dri­ving his per­son­al ve­hi­cle along Fac­to­ry Road in Pi­ar­co when he was over­tak­en by a dri­ver, who al­most col­lid­ed with the back of his pick-up truck.

King slowed down to avoid the col­li­sion and then turned in­to a gas sta­tion.

While fill­ing fu­el, King was ap­proached by a po­lice of­fi­cer, who crit­i­cised his dri­ving at the time of the ac­ci­dent.

King claimed that the of­fi­cer, who was lat­er iden­ti­fied as PC Mar­vin Burke, con­tin­ued to be ag­gres­sive even as he sought to ex­plain what tran­spired.

King at­tempt­ed to record the in­ter­ac­tion with his cell­phone but it was seized by the of­fi­cers, who in­struct­ed him to fol­low them to the Arou­ca Po­lice Sta­tion to re­trieve it.

King was de­tained and charged for as­sault­ing PC Burke and for in­de­cent be­hav­iour. He was al­so is­sued a $3,000 tick­et for dan­ger­ous dri­ving.

The charges were even­tu­al­ly dis­missed by a mag­is­trate a lit­tle over a year lat­er. He al­so con­test­ed the tick­et.

In de­ter­min­ing the case, Jus­tice Seep­er­sad ruled that he be­lieved King’s ev­i­dence over Burke’s.

Stat­ing that Burke was eva­sive and ar­gu­men­ta­tive in his tes­ti­mo­ny, Jus­tice Seep­er­sad said: “He dis­played a sense of ag­gres­sion that did not sit well with the court and was con­sis­tent with claims made by the claimant.”

Jus­tice Seep­er­sad al­so found that Burke’s claims over King’s al­leged con­duct were not sup­port­ed by Burke’s col­league Dar­rel Suther­land, who al­so tes­ti­fied in the case.

He al­so point­ed out that there was in­con­sis­tent ev­i­dence over King’s ar­rest, as a sta­tion di­ary ex­tract stat­ed that King was stopped af­ter mak­ing a “sud­den” turn and not an un­law­ful one as con­tend­ed by Burke. He al­so not­ed that the di­ary en­try stat­ed that King was charged for as­sault­ing Burke by Burke, which was il­log­i­cal as he (Burke) was the al­leged vic­tim.

Jus­tice Seep­er­sad al­so ques­tioned why King was not im­me­di­ate­ly ar­rest­ed if Burke’s claims over his con­duct were true.

“It is high­ly im­prob­a­ble for the po­lice to di­rect a dis­or­der­ly per­son to fol­low them to the sta­tion,” he said.

Jus­tice Seep­er­sad or­dered $75,000 in gen­er­al dam­ages for King and $25,000 in ex­em­plary dam­ages for the of­fi­cer’s con­duct.

King was rep­re­sent­ed by Sal­lian Holdip-Fran­cis, while the Of­fice of the At­tor­ney Gen­er­al and Burke were rep­re­sent­ed by Aryan­ta Williams and Abi­gail Bris­to.