No evidence DCP Phillip influenced by political party

THERE is “absolutely no material” to suggest that deputy Commissioner of Police Harold Phillip was influenced by senior public servants in his prosecution of a retired police officer for illegal culling and felling of trees in 2003.

In a written decision on Wednesday, Justices of Appeal Allan Mendonca, Mark Mohammed and Peter Rajkumar allowed the State’s appeal of a 2016 judgment of a High Court judge in which he admonished Phillip and advised the police service to guard itself against actual or perceived political influence.

In 2016, Justice Frank Seepersad found that then Assistant Superintendent of Phillip maliciously prosecuted his colleague, Harridath Maharaj. He awarded close to $300,000 to Mahara,j and said in his decision, “Policing is serious business and requires impartiality and keen sense to do that which is just and right.”

Maharaj, who himself was investigating a report of illegal felling of trees along the main ridge of the Mahaval Forest Reserve, Santa Flora, was told by a Forestry Division officer Keith Jaggernath, who were near a number of felled trees, that they were doing so at the instruction of a government minister.

Maharaj was instead arrested and charged for illegal felling of trees by Phillip. He attended court on 48 occasions before the two charges were dismissed. In his decision, Seepersad said a more thorough investigation should have been conducted by Phillip prior to the institution of the charges.

However, Justice Mohammed, who delivered the appellate court’s decision, said there was nothing to support the inference that Phillip was “was actuated by matters extrinsic to the investigation, for example, the influence of senior public servants, not affiliated with the Trinidad and Tobago Police Service, in an attempt to protect senior government officials.”

“In totality, there is nothing to suggest that the sole or dominant purpose of the prosecution was one other than for the proper invocation of the criminal law,” Mohammed said as he set aside all of Seepersad’s orders. He also held the circumstances of the case did not establish malice.

“The investigation conducted by ASP Phillip was an exhaustive and very careful one. There is no indication that it was short-circuited…The body of circumstantial material collated during the course of the investigation potently and plainly pointed to the respondent as being a suspect, in opposition to Jaggernauth,” Mohammed said.

He added, “Against the specific background of such a strong body of circumstantial material, emanating, critically, from different sources, there is nothing to suggest that ASP Phillip omitted to pursue any viable lines of inquiry which may have resulted in the exculpation of the respondent, at that stage.”

According to Mohammed, the allegations made by Maharaj against Jaggernauth were not matters for which Phillip would have been responsible for evaluating. “Such matters would have had to be considered by the tribunal of fact,” he said, adding, “There is absolutely no material to suggest that the investigation was in some manner, prejudicially skewed against the respondent.”

Phillip is currently on pre-retirement leave. At the appeal, the State was represented by attorney Josephina Baptiste-Mohammed, while Anand Ramlogan,SC, Ganesh Saroop and Jared Jagroo represented Maharaj.