Dillon Ramraj v The Attorney General of Trinidad and Tobago
| Jurisdiction | Trinidad & Tobago |
| Judge | Frank Seepersad |
| Judgment Date | 03 October 2023 |
| Neutral Citation | TT 2023 HC 306 |
| Docket Number | Claim No. CV 2023-00442 |
| Court | High Court (Trinidad and Tobago) |
In The Matter of an Application for Redress in Accordance with Section 14 of The Constitution by Dillon Ramraj a Citizen of The Republic of Trinidad and Tobago Alleging that Fundamental Rights Guaranteed under Certain Provisions (S 4(A), (C), (D), (H) And (I)) of The Said Constitution Continue to be Violated
Frank Seepersad
Claim No. CV 2023-00442
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE
1. Mr. A. Ramlogan S.C, Ms. R. Rambhajan, Ms. J. Lutchmedial, Mr. C. Dindial instructed by Ms. N. Bisram and Mr. G. Saroop, Attorneys-at-law for the Claimant.
2. Ms. C. Findley instructed by Ms. N. Simmons, Attorneys-at-law for the Defendant.
Before the Court for its determination is the Claimant's Fixed Date Claim Form filed on 14 February, 2023 by virtue of which the Claimant seeks the following reliefs:
-
a. A declaration that there has been a violation of the Claimant's rights to equality before the law and the protection of the law [s. 4(b)], equality of treatment from a public authority in the exercise of its functions [s. 4 (d)], and freedom of thought and expression [s.4(i)] guaranteed under the Constitution of Trinidad and Tobago;
-
b. A declaration that the tattoo policies of the Trinidad and Tobago Police Service are unconstitutional, illegal, null and void;
-
c. An order that monetary compensation including vindicatory damages be paid to the Claimant by the Defendant for the aforesaid breaches of his constitutional rights;
-
d. Costs; and
-
e. Such further and/or other relief as this Honourable Court might think just and appropriate.
In early 2019, the Claimant visited the Police Training Academy at St. James and he unsuccessfully applied to be recruited as a member of the Trinidad and Tobago Police Service (“TTPS”). The Claimant was disqualified from consideration because he had a tattoo on his left hand in or around the area between his thumb finger and his index figure (“the said tattoo”). The said tattoo depicted a small green Shuriken, more commonly referred to as a Ninja star. This symbol is apparently synonymous with Ninjas.
On 24 May 2022, the Claimant applied again to be recruited as a member of the TTPS and he was again denied the opportunity to be recruited based on the said tattoo.
In relation to the Claimant'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” (contained in Departmental Order 99 of 2011) (“the 2011 policy”). Subsequent to the 2011 policy, another policy was implemented via Departmental Order 117 of 2020 (“the 2020 policy”).
Further changes were subsequently made to the 2020 policy. These changes were implemented via the Departmental Order No. 47 of 2021 (“the 2021 policy”).
The Claimant contends that the 2020 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 Claimant asserts that during his first attempt, a female police officer told him that he must remove his tattoo before he can undergo the recruitment process.
The Claimant subsequently visited more than one (1) tattoo artist to try to have the said tattoo removed but to no avail. Following these unsuccessful removal attempts, the Claimant sent an email to the TTPS enquiring about his eligibility to join the Police Service on 24 May 2022 and by email dated 31 May 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.”
The Claimant asserts that the decision to bar him from joining the Police Service is unreasonable and has breached and continues to breach his right to equality of treatment from a public authority in the exercise of its functions: section 4(d); and his right to freedom of expression: section 4(i).
The Claimant contends that he has received no reasonable explanation for the TTPS policy to place a ban on the recruitment of persons who have visible tattoos.
The Claimant points out that once recruited there is apparently no prohibition against the display of visible tattoos and he referenced senior police officers who proudly display their tattoos and these include Police Constable Levelle Long, Police Constable Anand Dass, Acting Corporal Ranjtsingh and Acting Superintendent Alexander. Apart from these officers, the Claimant outlined that several Special Reserve Police Officers (who generally perform the same duties as police officers) also have tattoos on their skin and yet they have passed the necessary examinations, evaluations and training and have been appointed to the TTPS. These officers include the following:
– Mervyn Eligon Regimental Number: 20056
– Jeffery Jackman Regimental Number: 19238
– Nirvan Singh Regimental Number: 19134
– WPC Paul.
It was pointed out that Acting Superintendent Alexander is the national spokesperson for the TTPS as the co-host of the popular TV show “Beyond the Tape” on TV-6 and his tattoos are evidently visible.
The Claimant has cited the fact that he is unable to pursue his career dream to become a police officer and this has caused him to become frustrated and depressed.
The Defendant states that applicants wishing to be recruited into the TTPS as trainees must conform to the guidelines advanced by The Police Service Trainee Regulations, 2021 as contained in the Departmental Order No. 47 dated 16 th April, 2021. The process for recruitment of trainees is also outlined in the “Recruitment and Selection of Applicants into the TTPS Policy Manual”.
The Defendant stated that there is no record of the Claimant's application to join the TTPS in early 2019 as the database of the Police Training Academy only records the names of persons who were successfully screened.
Further there is also no record of the Claimant's second attempt at a TTPS application since the Police Training Academy did not invite any applications in March 2022.
The Defendant outlined that the new 2021 Trainee Regulations Tattoo Policy removes the absolute prohibition against tattoos which were not covered by the authorized TTPS uniform. As stated in section 14(iii), applicants with tattoos that are not covered by the TTPS uniform can now be permitted to continue in the recruitment and selection process where such tattoos are hidden with temporary coverage such as, but not limited to make-up or other temporary skin camouflage material.
The Defendant further states that it is at the screening stage of the recruitment and selection process that the physical state of an applicant's skin is scrutinized to determine compliance with the existing tattoo policy.
As it relates to the mentioned officers, the first tattoo policy was created in 2010 after Superintendent Alexander and PC Levelle Long had been enlisted into the TTPS. PC Anand Dass was physically examined in 2013 and approved for recruitment which suggested that he did not contravene the 2011 Tattoo Policy by means of any visible tattoos on his body. Similarly, with PC Jeffery Jackman and PC Nirvan Singh they were physically examined and approved for recruitment, therefore suggesting that there were no visible tattoos on their bodies at the time of screening as their tattoos were able to be covered by the authorized police uniform.
The Defendant asserts that the Claimant's tattoo does not disqualify him from applying to the TTPS based on the 2021 Trainee Regulations. While the issue as to whether a tattoo is offensive is subjective, the new regulations' approval of the use of camouflage or make-up addresses any concern.
The Defendant also pointed out that there are several qualifications which the applicant must pass for the recruitment and selection process. An applicant must be successful in his training before being allowed to join the TTPS.
The 2011 policy provides as follows:
-
(a) Female trainees shall not
(ii) engage in the acts of tattooing and body piercing.
-
(b) Male trainees shall not
(ii) engage in the acts of tattooing and body piercing
-
(c) Tattoos and body piercing shall be covered by the authorized police uniform issued by the Trinidad and Tobago Police Service
-
(d) Any tattoos and body piercing on the face, head, neck, hands, exposed arms and exposed legs are prohibited.
The 2020 policy is as follows:
4.0
In accordance with the Recruitment and Selection Policy, Candidates shall not display body art and modification on the head, face, neck, ears, scalp, or hands. For the purpose of this Policy, the prohibited areas of the neck and hands are considered to be anything visible beyond the fastened collar or the sleeve cuff of the grey shirt.
Body art and medication elsewhere on the body that a reasonable person would conclude are prejudicial to good order, discipline and morale or are of a nature to bring discredit upon the Trinidad and Tobago Police Service are prohibited.
For example, body art and modification that are excessive, obscene, sexually explicit or advocate or symbolize sex, gender, racial, religious, homophobic, or political ideologies, ethnic or national origin discrimination are prohibited. In addition, body art and modification that advocate or symbolize gang affiliation, violence, supremacist or extremist...
To continue reading
Request your trial