Derek Achong

Se­nior Re­porter

derek.achong@guardian.co.tt

A sol­dier has chal­lenged a de­ci­sion of a High Court judge to re­ject his law­suit claim­ing that he was un­fair­ly by­passed for pro­mo­tion.

Lawyers rep­re­sent­ing Staff Sergeant Rus­sell Reyes and the State pre­sent­ed sub­mis­sions in the ap­peal in a hear­ing be­fore Chief Jus­tice Ron­nie Boodoos­ingh and Ap­pel­late Judges Pe­ter Ra­jku­mar and Maria Wil­son yes­ter­day morn­ing.

In the ap­peal, Reyes, through his lawyer Ar­den Williams, is con­tend­ing that Jus­tice Na­dia Kan­ga­loo was wrong to have dis­missed his case, in which he claimed that the Chief of De­fence Staff (CDS) act­ed un­law­ful­ly in over­rid­ing a pro­mo­tion rec­om­men­da­tion made by his com­mand­ing of­fi­cer.

Pre­sent­ing sub­mis­sions, Williams claimed that the judge erred in rul­ing that he did not have a le­git­i­mate ex­pec­ta­tion that he would be pro­mot­ed based on es­tab­lished mil­i­tary cus­toms and pro­ce­dures.

Williams not­ed that the CDS’s de­ci­sion was based on a mi­nor dis­ci­pli­nary of­fence for which he was charged but not court-mar­tialled.

“His in­frac­tion was spent and no longer on his record,” Williams said, as he claimed that his client re­ceived “fur­ther pun­ish­ment” by be­ing de­nied pro­mo­tion.

Williams al­so claimed that the CDS could not in­ter­fere, as Reyes’ com­mand­ing of­fi­cer was per­form­ing an ad­min­is­tra­tive and non-op­er­a­tional func­tion.

“There is noth­ing in the ev­i­dence to show why he should not be pro­mot­ed,” Williams said.

Williams al­so point­ed out that there was an in­or­di­nate de­lay in re­solv­ing the dis­ci­pli­nary in­frac­tion.

He al­so ques­tioned whether the CDS was serv­ing as the des­ig­nat­ed of­fi­cer of the De­fence Coun­cil when he took the de­ci­sion.

The coun­cil, which in­cludes the Min­is­ter of Na­tion­al Se­cu­ri­ty, the per­ma­nent sec­re­tary of the min­istry and two oth­er Cab­i­net min­is­ters, is re­spon­si­ble for the com­mand, ad­min­is­tra­tion and dis­ci­pline of and all oth­er mat­ters re­lat­ing to the T&T De­fence Force (TTDF).

Re­spond­ing to the ap­peal, State at­tor­neys claimed that the judge’s de­ci­sion could not be fault­ed, as Reyes was wrong­ly al­lowed to par­tic­i­pate in a qual­i­fy­ing course for the rank of war­rant of­fi­cer when he was still fac­ing the dis­ci­pli­nary of­fence.

They claimed that his par­tic­i­pa­tion was due to an “ad­min­is­tra­tive er­ror.

Be­fore re­serv­ing their judg­ment to a date to be an­nounced, the ap­peal pan­el di­rect­ed the par­ties to file ad­di­tion­al writ­ten sub­mis­sions.

The State was rep­re­sent­ed by Mary Davis.