Renaldo Marajh v The Attorney General of Trinidad and Tobago
| Jurisdiction | Trinidad & Tobago |
| Judge | Mr. Justice Robin N. Mohammed |
| Judgment Date | 08 February 2024 |
| Neutral Citation | TT 2024 HC 48 |
| Docket Number | CLAIM NO: CV2021-00647 |
| Court | High Court (Trinidad and Tobago) |
In the Matter of An Application for Constitutional Redress Pursuant to Secion 14 of the Constitution of the Republic of Trinidad and Tobago
the Honourable Mr. Justice Robin N. Mohammed
CLAIM NO: CV2021-00647
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE
Mr. Anand Ramlogan SC leading Ms. Renuka Rambhajan, Ms. Jayanti R Lutchmedial and Mr. Gary Ramkissoon and instructed by Ms. Natasha Bisram and Mr. Vishaal Siewsaran for the Claimant
Ms. Vanessa Gopaul instructed by Ms Nisa Simmons for the Defendant
This matter concerns the constitutionality of Regulation 3(1)(f) of the Police Service Regulations 2007 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘PSR’) which imposes a minimum height requirement for new recruits seeking entry into the Trinidad and Tobago Police Service (hereinafter referred to as the ‘TTPS’).
The Claimant asserts that PSR 3(1)(f) is discriminatory as it disqualifies him from joining the Police Service on the basis of his height and the restriction impinges on his constitutional rights under section 4(b) and (d) of the Constitution to equality before the law and equality of treatment from a public authority in the exercise of its function without reasonable justification.
The Defendant, however, contends that the Regulation cannot be invalidated by section 4 of the Constitution because it is an existing law which is saved from challenge by virtue of Section 6 of the Constitution.
By Fixed Date Claim (Originating Motion) dated and filed February 18 th 2021, the Claimant instituted proceedings pursuant to Section 14 of the Constitution seeking the following reliefs against the Defendant:
-
a. A declaration that the Claimant's constitutional rights of equality before the law and the protection of the law, and equality of treatment from a public authority in exercise of any functions as guaranteed by Sections 4(b) and (d) of the Constitution was breached;
-
b. A declaration that Section 3 (1)(f) of the Police Service Regulations, 2007 is unconstitutional, null and void and of no legal effect;
-
c. A declaration that Section 3 (1)(f) of the Police Service Regulations, 2007 is incompatible with Sections 4(b) and (d) of the Constitution;
-
d. Damages, including vindicatory damages be assessed and paid to the Claimant;
-
e. Costs; and
-
f. Such further and/or other relief as the Court may in the exercise of its jurisdiction under section 14 of the Constitution consider appropriate for the purposes of enforcing, protecting and securing the enforcement and protection of the Claimant's said rights.
At the initial hearing of the Constitutional Motion on April 21 st 2021, the Court gave directions for filing of affidavits. Then Counsel for the Defendant, Ms Bello was also ordered to inform Counsel for the Claimant, Mr. Ramlogan S.C, as to the present status of recruitment in writing within one week.
The Claimant filed his submissions on August 30 th 2022 and after a lengthy delay and several extensions of time, the Defendant filed its submissions in response on September 1 st 2023. Reply Submissions were filed by the Claimant on December 4 th 2023.
Subsequent to the filing of reply submissions, the Claimant made an application on December 22 nd 2023 for injunctive relief after he caught wind of the commencement of a recruitment exercise by the Police Service. By this application, the Claimant sought to restrain the Defendant, its servants and/or agents from screening male candidates to join the Trinidad and Tobago Police Service (TTPS) scheduled for 12 th and 13 th January, 2024 pending the hearing and determination of this claim.
He contended that the Defendant had breached a purported undertaking given to the Court and the Claimant that the TTPS would not engage in any recruitment whilst the Claim remained pending. Further, he was being denied the opportunity to be screened in the recruitment exercise.
Resisting the Claimant's application, the Defendant filed the affidavits of Ms Anala Mohan and Commissioner of Police, Earla Harewood-Christopher. In Ms Mohan's affidavit she denied that the Defendant had ever given such an undertaking. COP Harewood-Christopher asserted that recommencement of the recruitment exercise was prompted by a mandate from Cabinet to increase the strength of the police force by 1000 in 2024. In order to do so, recruitment will be conducted in batches of 200 recruits at a time with the first batch of recruitment to be held on January 12 th and 13 th 2024.
She contended that the granting of the injunction would stymie the TTPS' ability to strengthen their crime-fighting strategy by increasing manpower to curb the wave of crime and would leave the TTPS in a depleted state in terms of its human resources in its crime-fighting efforts.
By way of explanation, however, Counsel for the Defendant, Ms Gopaul, admitted that an undertaking was in fact given but in different terms to that stated by Mr Ramlogan. The undertaking given was not that all recruitment exercises will be suspended until determination of this Claim but merely to inform Counsel of any proposed recruitment exercise being carried out by the TTPS. She apologized to Counsel for the Claimant and the Court for the oversight and their failure to comply with the undertaking. She explained that there was a change of the attorneys for the Defendant which caused a miscommunication between Defence attorneys, the new Commissioner of Police and the officers responsible for the recruitment exercise during the course of the proceedings which resulted in the inadvertent omission to communicate the proposed recruitment exercise to Counsel for the Claimant.
On account of this explanation, the parties entered into a consensual position for the adjournment of the proceedings pending this Court's judgment. The parties agreed by Consent Order dated January 17 th 2024 that —
“AND UPON the Defendant's evidence indicating that an initial batch of approximately two hundred (200) police trainees are about to be screened for selection for training
AND UPON Counsel for the Defendant confirming that undertaking previously given by the former Counsel for the Defendant remains in place and will be honoured by providing advanced notice to the Claimant of any further screening of candidates for training.”
The facts of this case are contained in the respective affidavits filed in support and defence of the claim by the parties and are summarized hereunder.
In support of his claim, the Claimant swore and filed an affidavit on the 18th day of February, 2021. Additionally, the affidavit and supplemental affidavit of Professor Ann Marie Bissessar sworn on the 14th and 19 th days of May, 2021 respectively, were filed on behalf of the Claimant.
The Claimant states that he is a young and healthy man who stands at a height of 160 centimetres. He expressed that becoming a police officer has always been his lifelong dream and ambition. However, despite his willingness to serve his country, he has been denied the opportunity to do so due to his height, a factor over which he has no control.
The Claimant deposed that in October 2020, he saw an online advertisement posted by TTPS inviting prospective applicants to attend a preliminary screening session. In response thereto, he submitted an application via post. In making enquires on the status of his application, he contacted the Police Service Academy. On doing so, he was informed that he was not eligible for consideration as he did not meet the height requirement of one hundred and sixty-seven centimetres (167cm) as required by PSR 3(1)(f) for recruitment into the service.
This denial of opportunity has caused the Claimant to feel frustrated and distressed, especially when he sees officers who do not appear to be physically fit or in good health, such as those who are overweight. He asserted that his father and brother are members of the protective service and his friends have been recruited into the police service, while he has been denied the opportunity simply because of his height.
The Claimant states that the height discrimination is clear between male and female recruits. He asserted that if he was of the female gender, he would have surpassed the minimum height requirement which is in place for women. As a man, he feels discriminated against as women who are not as tall as he is, can, have and are being recruited into the police service.
The Claimant believes that it was unfair for the Regulation to discriminate against him based on a feature of his physical appearance. He argued that his height had no bearing on his ability to perform the duties of a police officer. He pointed out that the TTPS website listed twenty-six different branches or departments within the organization, and that his height was not relevant to the duties performed in all of these branches.
Professor Ann Marie Bissessar, a Professor in Public Management at the University of the West Indies, gave evidence as an expert witness on behalf of the Claimant. She asserted that there is no compelling scientific, medical, bio-anthropological and sociological justification for the minimum height requirement.
Professor Bissessar opined that the minimum height requirement contributed disproportionately to a racial imbalance in the national security services and had the effect of disqualifying a significant section of the national community from the police service on account of their race. She noted that although persons of East Indian descent represented the largest percentage of the national population, this is not reflected in the number of officers in the...
To continue reading
Request your trial