152 special cops to receive $$

The High Court has granted a declaration that the State in failing and/or refusing to make regulations under section 26 of the Statutory Authorities Act has and continues to deny these officers access to a court of justice for the determination of their rights and obligations.

The court also granted a declaration that the State in failing and/or refusing to make regulations under section 60 of the Municipal Corporations Act and certain sections of the Statutory Authorities Act, has and continues to deny the officers the right to such procedural provisions guaranteed to them under the Constitution.

Madame Justice Amrika Tiwary-Reddy, presiding in the Port-of-Spain High Court, ordered that the State pay to the 152 officers compensation for the contravention of their rights and freedoms, to be assessed by a Judge in Chambers.

The officers were represented by Ramesh Lawrence Maharaj SC, Rikki Harnanan and Darrell Allahar, while the Assistant Solicitor General Terrence Thorne appeared for the Attorney General.

One hundred and fifty-three officers filed the constitutional motion in 2003, but one of them, Urban Francis, died while the matter was pending. They contended that they are required to perform the same duties and functions as members of the Trinidad and Tobago Police Service but they receive lesser salaries, allowances and benefits than the regular police officers.

However, the court struck down this argument as the municipal officers failed to provide evidence of the membership of their group, the total population in all municipalities and the geographic area covered by these municipalities. The judge found that the applicants did not provide evidence in respect to the regular police officers. The court, she added, could not make any analysis whether the applicants were true comparators with the regular police officers.

Tiwary said the applicants produced no evidence of the nature, scope, variety, complexity and degree of risk involved in the duties of the regular police officers.

Each of the applicants filed an affidavit giving details of the sums owed if each of them were to be paid salary and allowances equivalent to those paid to the regular police officers. But the court found there was no breach of their rights to equality of treatment from a public authority, and therefore they were not entitled to receive the same salaries and allowances of the regular police officers.