Ex-soldier loses Army dismissal case

Justice Frank Seepersad, in an oral ruling given after evidence from Kevin John and his former superior officer, said John’s alleged use of recreational marijuana was at his own risk. The judge said the Chief of Defence Staff at the time was entitled to discharge John for “service no longer required” after he tested positive for marijuana use in one of three drug tests administered to him in December 2010.

Seepersad also noted that John was lucky he was not dishonourably discharged, as there would be no taint on his character which would prejudice his future employment prospects. John was a private in the Army with eight years’ service.

John tested positive for marijuana use on December 20, 2010, when a reactive test was done by an army doctor at its Camp Cumuto barracks. Two tests done days earlier came back negative, but John’s superior decided the third test was needed, as the first two were not done in a controlled or supervised environment, and a strange “crackling” sound had been heard on one of the previous occasions when John provided a urine sample.

He was also charged with possession of marijuana after police searched his girlfriend’s home at Knightsbridge, Cascade. He and his girlfriend are still before the magistrates court on the possession charge. In his civil lawsuit, John claimed his rights to procedural fairness were breached, as the TTDF did not give him an opportunity to challenge the finding against him, but took the oppressive approach of discharging him.

In his ruling, Seepersad said the use of illegal narcotics should always be viewed as a circumstance of no tolerance, especially in the protective service.

He said so long as the use of illicit drugs remained a criminal offence, it was the public’s expectation that an officer who provides an invaluable service to the country should operate under strict compliance with the law. Seepersad said of even greater concern was the use of illegal substances by those who were entrusted with lethal weapons, such as soldiers. He said John’s superior officers were correct not to adopt a flexible approach when he tested positive for drug use.

The judge did suggest, however, that the TTDF should provide a list of offences and the nature of offences for which a no-tolerance approach would be adopted.

Although John lost his case, he was not ordered to pay the State’s costs, as he said he was unemployed.