Senior Reporter
rhondor.dowlat@guardian.co.tt
A High Court judge has declared that the TTPS tattoo policy is unconstitutional, discriminatory and ill-advised.
In early 2019, Dillon Ramraj visited the Police Training Academy in St James and he unsuccessfully applied to be recruited as a member of the TTPS.
Ramraj was disqualified because he had a tattoo on his left hand in or around the area between his thumb and his index finger. The tattoo depicted a small green shuriken, more commonly referred to as a ninja star. This symbol is synonymous with Ninjas.
Ramraj subsequently challenged the TTPS decision in court.
In his judgment yesterday, Justice Frank Seepersad ruled that the facts of the case demonstrate with certainty that the tattoo policy, in its current manifestation, “is discriminatory and ill-advised”.
He said, “There is an evident dichotomy and inequality of treatment with respect to potential recruits and serving officers in relation to visible tattoos and there is no apparent justification for a blanket prohibition against visible tattoos.”
The judge said the TTPS “did not reference or establish no logical basis upon which the tattoo policy is premised and no evidence has been adduced or explanation proffered to establish any justiciable rationale for the existence of the same”.
He added, “There must be a rational and reasonable connection between the tattoo policy and the restriction imposed upon the rights of the individual, but based upon the information placed before this court, it is difficult to comprehend why the visibility of a tattoo serves to disqualify a citizen who wishes to protect and serve.
“On the evidence presented, it is pellucid that the claimant’s right to freedom of expression has been breached and, without lawful justification, he was excluded from recruitment into the TTPS simply because he had a visible innocuous tattoo which he elected not to mask or camouflage,” Seepersad added.
He noted that the tattoo policy in its current form stands as an archaic, artificial administrative barrier which occasions significant prejudice.
“Its existence and implementation is unreasonable and cannot be justified in a modern democratic state,” he ruled.
After Ramraj was denied entry into the TTPS in 2019, he reapplied on May 24, 2022, but was again denied the opportunity to be recruited based on the same tattoo.
In relation to Ramraj’s first attempt to be recruited as a member of the TTPS in 2019, the relevant policy in place regarding tattoos was made pursuant to the Police Service (Trainee) Regulations, 2011.
After the 2011 policy, another policy was implemented via a departmental order in 2020. Further changes were subsequently made to the policy.
Ramraj contended that the new policy demonstrated a shift in the TTPS’s approach as the said policy permitted tattoos but there were certain areas where tattoos were prohibited and must be covered.
The 2021 policy, which has its foundation in the 2020 policy, also permits tattoos, but there are also certain areas where tattoos are prohibited and must be covered.
The court heard that during Ramraj’s first attempt, a female police officer told him that he must remove his tattoo before he could undergo the recruitment process.
He visited more than one tattoo artist to try to have the tattoo removed but to no avail. Following these unsuccessful removal attempts, he sent an email to the TTPS enquiring about his eligibility to join the service on May 24, 2022, and by email dated May 31, 2022, he was informed as follows:
“Please be advised that the recruiting process still has, as one of its rules, no visible tattoos. In the image you have forwarded the tattoo is still very much visible.”
Ramraj was represented by Anand Ramlogan, SC, Renuka Rambhajan, Jayanti Lutchmedial, Dr Che Dindial instructed by Natasha Bisram and Ganesh Saroop.
