Caption: Justice Frank Seepersad

Summary

• Justice Frank Seepersad says police interactions with citizens should be recorded using body cameras, CCTV, or cellphones;
• The court ruled in favour of T&T Defence Force corporal Elton King in his claim against PC Marvin Burke;
• King was awarded $100,000 in damages: $75,000 aggravated and $25,000 exemplary;
• The judge accepted King’s account of the April 15, 2020 incident and found no reasonable grounds to charge him, inferring malice;
• Seepersad criticised the TTPS’s approach to accountability and urged urgent reforms to rebuild public trust

 

By Prior Beharry

A HIGH Court judge has said all interactions between citizens and police should be recorded, whether by body-worn cameras, CCTV or mobile phones.

Justice Frank Seepersad made the comment in a ruling in favour of Trinidad and Tobago Defence Force corporal Elton King in a claim against Police Constable Marvin Burke. The court awarded King $100,000 – $75,000 in aggravated damages and $25,000 in exemplary damages.

In his ruling on Monday, Justice Seepersad accepted King’s version of events and found that he did not drive dangerously. Instead, the judge said, King took evasive action that caused him to slow down, even though the traffic light was green.

The incident

Court filings describe an incident on April 15, 2020, involving a confrontation between King and police officers that began after an encounter at a traffic light in Piarco.

In his statement of case, King said he was driving a black Nissan Frontier (registration TDX 7716) around 8.15 pm near the Factory Road intersection when a speeding vehicle overtook him on the right, nearly hitting his rear fender. He said he slowed briefly to avoid a collision, then continued to the NP service station on Factory Road to buy fuel.

King said that at the gas station he was approached by two officers who arrived in a marked police vehicle (registration PDA 7529), one in plainclothes and the other in police operational wear. He said the plainclothes officer accused him of almost causing an accident, questioned whether he was drunk, and spoke to him in a hostile and insulting manner.

King said the officer poked him in the shoulder and, when he asked the officer not to touch him, the officer replied: “I is the police, I can do what I want.”

He said he attempted to retrieve his phone to record the interaction, but the plainclothes officer snatched it and told him to “come down to the station” to get it. King said he identified himself as Corporal King (E.11977) of the Trinidad and Tobago Defence Force, but was still told to go to the station.

He said he went to the Arouca Police Station around 8.40 pm to make a report, but was told to wait due to Covid-19 restrictions. He said he was later advised to return the next morning because only senior officers could take his report.

After waiting more than 45 minutes, King said the same officer told him he was being arrested without stating the reason, adding that he would find out “when I charge you,” and warning that resisting would bring an additional charge.

King said he was searched, placed in a cell, denied a phone call, and held for about 30 minutes before being told to retrieve his driver’s permit and insurance from his vehicle.

The judge’s findings

Justice Seepersad said PC Burke, who confronted King, was unprofessional and that King was entitled to try to record what was happening.

“The court also rejected the assertion that the claimant pushed his cellphone in the officers’ face and, interestingly, officer Sutherland—who placed the parties 3.5 feet apart for the duration of the incident—made no such observation.

“The court also finds that the defendant’s sequence of events is improbable, as it is highly unlikely that the police will ask someone who is behaving disorderly to jump back into his vehicle and follow them to the station. It is more probable that, in such circumstances, the disorderly individual would be arrested and taken to the station.

“On the facts adduced, the court holds the view that there existed absolutely no reasonable and probable grounds to justify charging the claimant, and given the factual matrix which unfolded, the requisite degree of malice can be inferred.”

Call for stronger accountability

The judge said the case again highlighted the need to review laws relating to police accountability.

“Recent statistics have indicated that public trust and confidence in the TTPS is under 10%.

“For a Republic which is besieged by rampant lawlessness, this is disturbing and deplorable. The curbing of crime requires public cooperation and the relationship between the police and the public is symbiotic. Effective policing is contingent upon the provision of credible information provided by discerning members of society.

“When public trust and confidence in the Trinidad and Tobago Police Service (TTPS) is almost non-existent, it is obvious that crime will not be curtailed.

“There is an appalling failure, rooted in either incompetence, nonchalance or complacency, by the leadership of the TTPS to bolster the public’s trust in the service and to correct the crass and disrespectful manner in which far too many officers interact with citizens.”

He added that the officers’ position in this case regarding King’s attempt to record events showed “an acute aversion to accountability.”

“If the police’s version was taken at its highest, it is impossible to understand how the recording could have amounted to an assault, and the assertion that the phone was thrust into the face of the officer lacks credibility and is rejected, as no utility would have been achieved by recording his nostrils.

“One understands that the TTPS discharges an onerous responsibility as criminal elements are hell-bent on creating chaos, and yet they instinctively invoke the protection of the law.”

Justice Seepersad said those who enforce the law must act within its remit and behave professionally and responsibly.

“In the absence of legislation to hold officers who have been found to have maliciously prosecuted citizens personally responsible for the damages awarded, the mandatory use of body cameras should be prioritised.

“Contemporaneous recordings provide the best evidence and protect all the parties involved.

“Until this is done, CCTV cameras and cellphones must be used to record all interactions between citizens and the police, and citizens are urged to use their phones to record all matters which involve breaches of the law and the manner in which the police engage the public.

“Accountability is required at every level of society and should not be resisted or feared; instead it must be embraced. The resistance to accountability often suggests that things are awry.

“As the guardian of the Constitution, this court will unapologetically ensure that the rights of citizens are protected and will continue to declare that violations will not be tolerated.”