Appeal Court rules for cop with law degree

A police officer who said he was exempted from sitting the police promotion examination for the rank of inspector because he had a law degree has successfully argued his case against the Commissioner of Police at the Court of Appeal.

In a written decision delivered last week, Justices of Appeal Allan Mendonca, Nolan Bereaux and Peter Rajkumar said the State failed to justify the resiling from Francis Chattie’s legitimate expectation that he would not have to sit any further promotional examination in the second division.

Chattie took the commissioner to court after he was made to write the exams in 2016 and had not been exempted from doing so by a departmental order.

In his lawsuit, Chattie, who was represented by attorneys Anand Ramlogan, SC, Jayanti Lutchmedial, Douglas Bayley and Chelsea Stewart, claimed a 2007 departmental order exempted all officers who had an LLB degree and said they were entitled to a full exemption.

Chattie obtained his LLB from the University of London in 2008.

But, a 2010 departmental order curtailed the decision to exempt officers with an LLB from sitting the exam.

In their decision, Rajkumar, who delivered the ruling, said the State failed to substantiate the requisite overriding interest, or overriding public interest, in having the holder of an LLB, from London University, who had enjoyed a written exemption from any further exam for promotion in the second division, to write one with a focus on writing reports, letters and memos.

“Even when taking into account the objective of efficiency and good administration and proper functioning of the police service, resiling from the expressed exemption and the legitimate expectation to enjoy that exemption, could not satisfy the test of proportionality required to justify it.”

Rajkumar said when the unfairness of interpreting the 2010 police departmental order as having retrospective effect, and the uneven application of the allegedly new policy, were added to the balance, “It is clearly in favour of upholding the appellant’s legitimate expectation of the promised exemption and not permitting the respondents to resile therefrom.

“No overriding interest or public policy consideration had been demonstrated on the evidence to necessitate this result,” Rajkumar added.

Having looked at the evidence in the case, the judges said the commissioner and the police examination board – which was also taken to court – in circumstances where other people had been given the exemption denied to Chattie, and fairness required a prospective rather than retrospective application of the departmental order.

The judges also ordered that Chattie’s case should be sent back to the commissioner and the exam board for consideration in accordance with their findings.

They also granted a decalaration that he is eligible and qualified to be considered for promotion to the rank of inspector, based on the 2007 departmental order.

Attorneys Karlene Seenath and Amrika Ramsook represented the State.