State objects to $600k cost assessment in police tattoo policy case

THE STATE has objected to a cost order assessed by a court in the lawsuit involving a police policy on recruits with tattoos.

On April 24, Justice Frank Seepersad assessed costs of $685,187.50 for Dillon Ramraj, who sued the State after he was told he could not apply to become a police officer because of a ninja star tattoo on his left hand.

On October 3, 2023, Seepersad deemed the policy “discriminatory and ill-advised” and ordered compensation for Ramraj for the violation of his rights. He ordered costs to be assessed once a statement of costs was filed.

However, on June 11 attorneys for the State complained of the service of the statement of costs and asked for the cost order to be set aside, as well as permission to appeal.

But Ramraj’s attorney Anand Ramlogan, SC, objected to the complaint, saying the statement of costs was served in keeping with the protocols set by the Attorney General’s office on electronic service.

He also admitted his team was disappointed with the court’s assessment.

He said in the matter involving the $20 million compensation award to nine people who were accused but eventually acquitted of murdering businesswoman Vindra Naipaul-Coolman, the State objected
to the way the proceedings were served on the AG’s office.

In that matter, a High Court judge set aside the $20 million order and agreed the nine had not properly served the proceedings in keeping with the procedure set out by the State Liability and Proceedings Act for the acceptance of service on behalf of the State.

Ramlogan said in that case, the State objected to service being made on an attorney from the State’s legal department unless that person was prescribed by the AG.

He said since then there had been advertisements by the AG’s office on the proper way to serve proceedings on the State.

“We have now been given strict instructions on how to serve the State.”

Seepersad ordered both sides to put their contentions in writing and said he would deal with the issue on July 8. He also urged them to resolve the issue amicably.

“I really do not relish dealing with cost assessments. However, we cannot bury our heads in the sands on assessment of costs.”

Seepersad also pointed out that the issue of legal briefs to private attorneys was now in the public domain.

He said the AG’s office briefs private lawyers in recognition of the importance and implications of administrative law matters and there must be equality across the board.

On June 7, AG Reginald Armour, SC, partly acceded to a request by the Opposition for details of attorneys who received state briefs.