2 cops win battle in Privy Council

TWO Police Corporals, who took the Police Service Commission (PSC) to court over promotion exams, have won their case in the Privy Council.

The London-based court ruled yesterday in favour of Eusebio Cooper and Clifford Balbosa, and ordered the PSC to pay the costs in the High Court, Court of Appeal and Privy Council.

The British law lords declared that it is the sole responsibility of the PSC to appoint an Examination Board, and not the Public Service Commission. They also ruled that the setting and marking of the papers of the Examination Board are subject to the ultimate control of the Police Service Commission.

The Privy Council Board comprised Lords Bingham, Steyn, Hope, Rodger, and Baroness Hale. Allan Newman QC and Anand Ramlogan appeared for the policemen, while James Dingemans QC represented the PSC.

Cooper and Balbosa sat the examinations for promotion to the rank of sergeant in August 2002. The examinations had been set by the Public Service Examination Board. Many months passed without the release of the results. The then president of the Police Social and Welfare Association, Inspector Christopher Holder, complained that this was not the first time that results were delayed.

On July 8, 2003, the PSC issued a media release stating that the sole responsibility for the conduct of the examinations fell under the purview of the Public Service Examination Board — a Cabinet-appointed body. The release stated that the Board was not a part of the PSC, nor for that matter, any part of other Service Commissions.

On July 11, 2003, Cooper and Balbosa instituted judicial review proceedings. Madame Justice Maureen Rajnauth-Lee granted leave and on December 2003, Justice David Myers ruled in favour of the Trinidad policemen. He declared that the appointment of the Board by Cabinet was unconstitutional, illegal, null and void and of no effect and that the PSC was the only authority responsible for the conduct of promotion examinations for the Police Service.

The PSC appealed and on January 19, 2005, the Court of Appeal comprising Chief Justice Sat Sharma, Justice Rolston Nelson, and Justice Wendell Kangaloo, allowed the appeal and set aside Myers’ judgment.

By that time, the 2002 results were released but Cooper and Balbosa were unsuccessful. The two aggrieved policemen then appealed to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council. According to Hope, who delivered the judgment, there were two main issues. The first was whether the appointment of the Public Service Examination Board by Cabinet was unconstitutional. The second was whether the delay in releasing the results of the 2002 examinations was unreasonable.

In his 14-page judgment, Hope stated that the media release of July 8, 2003 was wrong to say that the sole responsibility for the conduct of examinations for appointment to and promotion within the Police Service lay with the Public Service Examination Board.

Hope said according to section 123 of the constitution, the power of appointment of persons to hold office in the Police Service, is vested in the PSC, and that sole responsibility for the conduct of examinations for appointment and promotion, lies with the same Commission.