Derek Achong
A Carenage man is expected to learn the fate of his lawsuit against the Chief of Defence Staff (CDS) over a decision to block him from joining the T&T Defence Force (TTDF) as a recruit before he celebrates his 25th birthday in late June.
During a virtual hearing earlier this week, High Court Judge Frank Seepersad reserved June 22 to deliver his judgment in the judicial review lawsuit brought by Christopher Stanislaus, of L'Anse Mitan Road, in Carenage.
In setting the date and giving deadlines for filing evidence and submissions in the case, Justice Seepersad extended an injunction which reserved a place in the TTDF for Stanislaus pending the determination of the case.
Although Justice Seepersad noted that the injunction could have continued even after Stanislaus attained the maximum age for new recruits in June, he still endeavoured to resolve the dispute before then.
In his court filings, obtained by Guardian Media, Stanislaus' lawyers claimed that he responded to the TTDF's recruitment drive, last year, and was informed in writing that he was selected to undergo basic training for the T&T Regiment.
His lawyers claimed that the day before training was due to commence in early January, he was contacted and told to instead report to the Coast Guard Training Facility in Chaguaramas.
Stanislaus claimed that when he arrived he was met by a lieutenant, a sergeant, and a private, who told him that the TTDF had received an "adverse report" on him from the T&T Police Service (TTPS) while performing background checks on new recruits.
"The applicant was not provided with a copy of any report nor was any report read out to him or elaborated upon," his lawyers said, as they claimed that he was told that he could no longer participate in the recruitment process.
His lawyers claimed that he was questioned over whether he had gang affiliations and he responded in the negative.
Based on the recommendation of the sergeant, Stanislaus obtained and submitted a letter from a senior police officer indicating that he (Stanislaus) had a clean criminal record with no pending cases or convictions and a testimonial from his former employer.
However, the decision was not reversed.
"It is my contention that I have suffered a fate that is unfair. There is nothing criminal known against me and I know this to be true," Stanislaus said in his affidavit attached to the case.
In the lawsuit, his lawyers are contending that the action taken against him was unreasonable, unfair, irrational, unlawful, and against the principles of natural justice.
Through the lawsuit, Stanislaus is seeking a series of declarations against the decision and an order quashing it.
Stanislaus is also seeking the salary and benefits he would have received from January if he was not ejected from the recruitment process.
In the event that he succeeds in his lawsuit but Justice Seepersad decides against ordering his reinstatement, Stanislaus is seeking approximately $1.78 million in damages, which represents his potential loss of future earnings.
Presenting brief submissions, yesterday, Stanislaus' lawyer Arden Williams pointed out that the CDS did not disclose any official report on his client when it responded to a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request before the lawsuit was filed.
Justice Seepersad said that he would await evidence from the CDS as the negative report may have been made by a member of the public in response to newspaper advertisements on the list of potential recruits.
Williams suggested that the possible explanation proffered by Justice Seepersad may not be valid as he stated that the advertisements are usually published well before recruits are invited to participate in basic training.
Although the CDS was not represented by an attorney during the hearing despite being served, Williams promised to notify the CDS of the deadlines set for the case.
Stanislaus was also represented by Mariah Ramrattan.
