Derek Achong

Se­nior Re­porter

derek.achong@guardian.co.tt

Em­bat­tled Po­lice Com­mis­sion­er Er­la Hare­wood-Christo­pher has failed in her at­tempt to thwart a move to tem­porar­i­ly re­place her while she re­mains on sus­pen­sion be­cause of an on­go­ing crim­i­nal probe.

High Court Judge Christo­pher Sieuc­hand dis­missed Hare­wood-Christo­pher’s in­junc­tion ap­pli­ca­tion, af­ter hear­ing lengthy sub­mis­sions from her lawyers and those for the Po­lice Ser­vice Com­mis­sion (PolSC) dur­ing a vir­tu­al hear­ing yes­ter­day af­ter­noon.

His de­ci­sion came al­most an hour af­ter the House of Rep­re­sen­ta­tives de­bat­ed and ap­proved the com­mis­sion’s rec­om­men­da­tion to ap­point Deputy Com­mis­sion­er of Po­lice (DCP) Ju­nior Ben­jamin to tem­porar­i­ly act in the CoP post while Hare­wood-Christo­pher re­mains un­der sus­pen­sion.

How­ev­er, it was not a to­tal de­feat for Hare­wood-Christo­pher, as Jus­tice Sieuc­hand grant­ed her leave to pur­sue her sub­stan­tive case chal­leng­ing her sus­pen­sion by the PolSC.

In his de­ci­sion, Jus­tice Sieuc­hand not­ed that while Hare­wood-Christo­pher had filed a ju­di­cial re­view law­suit over the PolSC’s de­ci­sion to sus­pend her, she on­ly sought the in­junc­tion in re­la­tion to its as­so­ci­at­ed rec­om­men­da­tion of Ben­jamin to act as CoP.

“In my view, the bal­ance of con­ve­nience does not favour grant­i­ng this or­der. In fact, it mil­i­tates against it,” Jus­tice Sieuc­hand said.

He ar­gued that leav­ing the post open would be in­ap­pro­pri­ate based on the role and im­por­tance of the of­fice.

“Al­low­ing such a void to per­sist can­not, in my view, be jus­ti­fied when the present cir­cum­stances are such that our coun­try is plagued by high lev­els of re­port­ed se­ri­ous crime and we con­tin­ue un­der a State of Emer­gency,” he said.

“The pow­ers of the Com­mis­sion­er of Po­lice are there for a rea­son and some­one ought to be en­trust­ed to dis­charge them,” he added.

Deal­ing with whether Hare­wood-Christo­pher should be giv­en ap­proval to pur­sue the case, Jus­tice Sieuc­hand not­ed that she had raised ar­guable grounds with a re­al­is­tic prospect of suc­cess at an even­tu­al tri­al.

He specif­i­cal­ly iden­ti­fied her lawyers’ com­plaints over her not be­ing al­lowed to make rep­re­sen­ta­tions be­fore the com­mis­sion took the de­ci­sion and over the com­mis­sion hav­ing in­suf­fi­cient ev­i­dence be­fore it to war­rant its ac­tion to sus­pend her al­though she was re­leased from cus­tody with­out be­ing charged.

“These are mixed ques­tions of fact and law to be de­ter­mined at tri­al,” he said.

Be­fore ad­journ­ing the case to March 6, Jus­tice Sieuc­hand gave di­rec­tions and dead­lines for the fil­ing of ev­i­dence.

Last Thurs­day, Hare­wood-Christo­pher was ar­rest­ed and de­tained by in­ves­ti­ga­tors led by DCP Suzette Mar­tin.

Her ar­rest was in re­la­tion to a probe in­to the pro­cure­ment and im­por­ta­tion of two sniper ri­fles for the Strate­gic Ser­vices Agency (SSA).

The com­mis­sion in­formed Hare­wood-Christo­pher of her sus­pen­sion hours af­ter she was re­leased from cus­tody at the St Clair Po­lice Sta­tion pend­ing fur­ther in­ves­ti­ga­tions on Sat­ur­day.

Pre­sent­ing sub­mis­sions yes­ter­day, Hare­wood-Christo­pher’s lawyer Pamela El­der, SC, claimed that when the PolSC com­mu­ni­cat­ed its de­ci­sion, it pro­vid­ed lit­tle in­for­ma­tion for its ba­sis for do­ing so.

She not­ed that ad­di­tion­al par­tic­u­lars were pro­vid­ed when it re­spond­ed to her client’s le­gal threat on Mon­day.

“The PolSC is scram­bling to jus­ti­fy its de­ci­sion,” El­der said, as she ques­tioned how her client could ad­e­quate­ly re­spond with­out know­ing the al­le­ga­tions lev­elled against her.

“How could I re­spond if I don’t know how I mis­be­haved or what I have done?” El­der asked.

She sug­gest­ed that the com­mis­sion had to have in­for­ma­tion that Hare­wood-Christo­pher had com­mit­ted the of­fence of mis­be­hav­iour in pub­lic of­fice she was be­ing probed for.

“You can­not sus­pend based on an of­fi­cer’s sus­pi­cion,” El­der said.

She claimed that her client’s sus­pen­sion had al­so caused dam­age to her pro­fes­sion­al rep­u­ta­tion.

“The sus­pen­sion has ex­ac­er­bat­ed the hu­mil­i­a­tion,” she said.

El­der al­so sug­gest­ed that the com­mis­sion did not have the pow­er to sus­pend with­out first in­sti­tut­ing dis­ci­pli­nary pro­ceed­ings against her.

In re­sponse, the com­mis­sion’s lawyer, Deb­o­rah Peake, SC, stat­ed that her client on­ly had to be sat­is­fied that Hare­wood-Christo­pher may have com­mit­ted the of­fence. She said dis­ci­pli­nary pro­ceed­ings were not re­quired.

“There is noth­ing that the Po­lice Com­mis­sion­er has said to sug­gest the in­ves­ti­ga­tion was im­prop­er. There is no ev­i­dence she did not sign the im­port per­mit,” Peake said.

“It is dif­fi­cult to see how it might not ap­pear to the com­mis­sion that she may have com­mit­ted an of­fence,” she added.

Peake al­so ar­gued that Hare­wood-Christo­pher’s rep­u­ta­tion was not im­pact­ed by the PolSC’s de­ci­sion.

“The em­bar­rass­ment oc­curred from her be­ing ar­rest­ed, de­tained and cau­tioned,” she said.

Peake said the com­mis­sion could not be fault­ed for tak­ing the ac­tion, as if Hare­wood-Christo­pher re­mained in the post she would have re­tained the pow­er to stop in­ves­ti­ga­tions, trans­fer of­fi­cers, and de­cide up­on firearm user’s li­cences (FULs).

“The PolSC had to act with dis­patch in the pub­lic in­ter­est,” Peake said.

“These are se­ri­ous and grave al­le­ga­tions,” she added.

Peake al­so point­ed out that in her court fil­ings, Hare­wood-Christo­pher on­ly claimed that DCP Mar­tin, who is lead­ing the probe and pro­vid­ed in­for­ma­tion to the com­mis­sion be­fore it made its de­ci­sion, may have been mo­ti­vat­ed by bias.

“She has not said that these of­fi­cers have a vendet­ta against me,” Peake said.

Peake al­so claimed the com­mis­sion would be will­ing to re­con­sid­er its de­ci­sion when the probe is com­plet­ed next week, or if Hare­wood-Christo­pher pro­vides sub­mis­sions on the sus­pen­sion be­fore then.

“If the com­mis­sion­er has ev­i­dence that this in­ves­ti­ga­tion is trumped up or bi­ased, then we hope she would present it to the com­mis­sion,” she said.

Hare­wood-Christo­pher was al­so rep­re­sent­ed by Rus­sell Warn­er, while Ravi Heffes-Doon ap­peared along­side Peake for the com­mis­sion.

See pages 6 & 7