The recommendation by the PSC not to charge is atrocious

Sep 19, 2017 Letters

---

Dear Editor,
Reading the one of the editorials in another newspaper (“PSC’s disturbing recommendation to Top Cop”), I was reminded of the time, when a former chairman of the Judicial Service Commission made a recommendation to President Hoyte, (the story is told in a case reported as Barnwell V The AG and Another (1993) 49WIR 88). The moral behind that chairman’s decision (matters of procedural impropriety notwithstanding) was that where there are serious allegations made against an officer (in that case a Judge) the officer must be made to account and disciplinary measures instituted.
IN CONTRAST; and in contradistinction, the Omesh Satyanand chaired Police Service Commission’s recommendation in a 14th July 2017 letter to the Commissioner of Police that “no charge should be instituted against the officers”, portrays just the opposite: unaccountability, and tolerance for serious indiscipline in, of all institutions, a necessarily disciplined service, like the GPF. I submit that the PSCs decision amounts to a contumacious disregard of its public duties, and abuse of the public’s trust, serious enough to warrant condemnation and punishment.
Yet, Omesh Satyanand seeks to discredit the editorial, (“Role of Police Service Commission – disciplinary matters” – KN, Monday, September 11). And coincidentally, there is a letter by retired Assistant Commissioner Clinton Conway (“some burning questions of 2017-09-11).In Mr. Conway’s letter we, are informed of “20 alleged acts of misconduct committed by 17 officers and inspectors”. And this is the gravamen of this matter.
Was there really no real prospect of conviction or guilty finding in nine of those 20 allegations – hence, “no charge”?. That prospectivity, was the legal test as to whether in this matter “no charge” was justified. The evidential material on file was the determinant factor; not “interviews”. Both the DPP,and the chairman of the PC A (being a former Chancellor of the Judiciary), would be very familiar with, and of profound understanding of, that legal test.
The present CoP (not being learned in law); and that PSC, have no such capacities. So, legalistic niceties about the due exercise of the PSCs and/or CoP’s discretionary powers notwithstanding, I submit that it must be the mother of all irrationalities, bordering on asininity, for the DPPs and PCAs recommendations to institute charges to have been overruled by that PSC and CoP, in their respective capacities. One should think this an indefensible irrationality; amounting to a breach of public trust.
But Mr. Satyanand in arguing the PSC’s case for justification of the “no charge should be instituted against the officers” decision, does not alert us to this high figure of 20, but by a sleight of pen, mentions, ONLY two (2) “examples” as to why the “allegations leveled against these ranks” (ie the 20) “were recommended to be dismissed”. So,what about these other 18? Not a word, except that self-serving “interviews” were done with the ranks.
The irresistible inference, as it seems to me, is that on the facts of those 18 other allegations a “no charge” recommendation was not justified by any standard or basis; and so adopting the aphorism that – silence is golden, he tactfully makes no mention, thereby avoiding having to also give details of these 18. Moreover, no recommendation should have been made at all in respect of offences involving any rank BELOW Inspector; for at that stage (not being some appeal) the PSC has no disciplinary function over those ranks.
But readers, Mr. Satyanand’s tangled web of deceit gets even more tangled. We are reliably informed in the GCs editorial that his letter to CoPSeelallPersaud recommending “no charge …” is dated 14 July 2017″ (this date is important as to the time line of events he refers to in support of the “no charge” decision). But in his convoluted letter to the KN, he writes “Interestingly in correspondence dated August 15th, 22nd, 23rd, 24th, and 25th 2017 the “Top Cop” has recommended that all charges be dismissed due to lack of sufficient evidence despite the recommendations from the Police Complaints Authority”. So, recognize that these correspondences from the beleaguered Top CoP were sent ex post facto to the PSC, i.e. some 1½ month AFTER Mr. Satyanand’s letter of 14th July to the CoP.
So, unless that Satyanand chaired PSC was somehow psychic, or telescopic in its perceptions, it could not have materially anticipated that the TOP Cop would have taken a similar position as that taken by the PSC some 1½ month before, and so those correspondences are of no value and wholly irrelevant to the critical question whether on that date (ie 14th July 2017) the PSC had information, or evidence, or even recommendation that justified its “no charge” decision in regards to all 20 allegations. No such is discernible in his letter. So, plainly, on the merits of the facts, the PSC’s “no charge…” case is as weak as weak could be, and insupportable.
So, Mr. Satyanand as justification, invokes the cloak of the “Constitutionality of the Police service commission”. Ironically, as I argue, it is this very “constitutionality” which contrives also to damnify him and the other PSC’s members whose decision/recommendation was “unanimous”.
Maxwell Edwards
Attorney-at-Law

---

---