Legal unit proposes no pay for cops on suspension

Under a proposed new policy, police officers who are suspended for breaking the law will not be paid and will not be allowed vacation or other forms of accumulated leave.

A document issued by the Police Service's legal unit, Entitlement to Leave whilst on Suspension/Interdiction Draft Policy, proposes that officers should not be allowed to acquire vacation leave from the date of suspension to the completion of their matters.

An officer will also not be allowed to go on any type of leave while suspended. He or she will, however, be paid pre-retirement leave salary while on suspension.

If an officer acquired leave before being suspended, then the officer will be paid the salary for that accumulated leave. Any officer on suspension will not be allowed to go on pre-retirement leave unless he or she accumulated leave before being suspended.

The four-page policy, dated May 13, says: “An officer who is suspended/interdicted pending the outcome of criminal proceedings shall not be entitled to any compensation if the criminal matter is determined after retirement.”

In response, Police Service Social Welfare Association president Insp Gideon Dickson said such a policy will not receive the support of the association, which will “fight it with everything.”

Dickson welcomed the use of tribunals to address matters in a timely manner, but said an officer's not being paid while suspended seemed like double punishment.

“If an officer is found guilty after he had retired, then they should take his salaries back from his gratuity or pension, but not deny him a salary.

"The connotation of suspension is already a negative one. A man is innocent until proven guilty, and this just seems like double punishment.”

The policy added that an officer found not guilty of the offence will be entitled to compensation for loss of salary during suspension. Additionally, the officer will be paid salary for vacation and other leave lost during the suspension.

Also on the list of proposals to the Police Service Act is that head of the legal unit Christian Chandler should be allowed to transfer officers out of his unit. This proposal will grant Chandler legal authority to discipline officers.

This comes after police assigned to the unit raised concerns with the association about Chandler's supposedly overstepping his legal remit following two branch orders – one signed by Police Commissioner Gary Griffith and another signed by Chandler – giving him the authority to transfer police and civilian staff.

In the branch order, issued on May 11, Chandler told staff at Tower C, International Waterfront in Port of Spain that the intention of the order was to govern the daily operations of the unit. Under the heading “Intention,” Chandler wrote: “It is also to clearly establish the duties and responsibilities of all employees under the Head Legal Services at Tower C. Failure of any employee to comply with this branch order will result in disciplinary action as deemed fit in the appropriate circumstances, by the Head Legal Services.”

Newsday published an article highlighting the concerns on May 23. Since then, civilian attorneys assigned to the unit have made proposals to amend the legislation.

Under the heading “Disciplinary procedure” the proposal said: “Head legal to be given power to transfer legal officers attached to the Legal Unit.” There are police and civilian legal officers assigned to the unit.

This too did not sit well with Dickson, who said that will never be allowed under his watch.

“We will not support that. No civilian should have authority to administrate the rank and file of the police service. That is treating the police service like a chess board. He (Chandler) is using the law to suit him. Everyone wants to run the police service.”

Dickson said the police service, like many institutions in TT, is not infallible, but the proposed fixes are not in keeping with best practices.

“We are working hard, on 2013 salaries to boot, and we are not guinea pigs. Everyone wants perfection, but we have to get it across the board, don’t use the TTPS as guinea pigs and say, 'We will make an example of you.' These changes are to satisfy people’s own agenda and is a recipe for disaster.”

The proposal comes as Griffith seeks to “clean up” the service. In May, he said it was unacceptable to have officers charged with violent crimes, such as murder and rape, and still be in the service. He moved to fire 20 officers charged with violent offences, but was challenged by one officer, whose case will be heard by Justice Ricky Rahim.

On March 16, PC Safraz Juman, and five co-accused were served with a letter titled “Dismissal or Retirement of (name inserted) from the TT Police Service.”

Juman filed a judicial review against Griffith, as one of the 20 officers,
asking that he either resign or explain why he should not be fired.

?

He is one of six officers who, on July 15, 2013, were committed to stand trial for the murders of Abigail Johnson, Alana Duncan and Kerron “Fingers” Eccles. The trio were shot dead during an encounter with police at the corner of Poui and Gunness Trace in Barrackpore on July 22, 2011. Juman was last assigned to the Southern Division CID’s operations unit.

In a media briefing on June 18, Griffith said there are 280 officers on suspension and 24 in prison.

He added that tribunals will begin soon to deal with officers on suspension, as “officers should not be suspended indefinitely.” This, he said, is a burden to the taxpayers, amounting to close to $50 million annually.

At the media conference, Chandler said tribunals are expected to begin this month, which should lessen the time officers are on suspension. He added that recording systems were being put in place in order to have “effective and efficient” tribunals, and officers are being trained to better assist with the tribunals.

Chandler, in a WhatsApp response to Sunday Newsday, in May, said: “For far too long police officers have been on suspension without a hearing and their lives and careers left in abeyance whilst they continue to be paid at the expense of taxpayers. The consequence of which is that, the police service’s actual strength is diametrically opposed to that which is reflected by the records, much to the disadvantage of the organisation and the CoP."

Other proposed amendments are:

1. CoP has the right to refuse promotion to any officer who has been on extended sick leave, on the basis that all officers must be fit. This will also extend to officers injured in the line of duty.

2. Removing the Promotion Advisory Board,adopting a new process and having interviews at least monthly and not every three months or whenever deemed fit, as is the law under Section 19 of the Police Service Act.

3. Travelling allowance for legal officers.

4. Allowing suspended officers to take promotional exams. This proposal was flagged as the promotion during suspension was raised.

5. Giving powers to the CoP to suspend officers without pay.

6. There shall be no retroactive promotion. This amendment was suggested in the event an officer on suspension writes the promotion exams and is scheduled to be promoted, but retires before his matter is adjudged and found not guilty. The officer will receive his substantive pension but not be retroactively promoted nor receive the promoted pension.

7. Removing polygraph tests. The reasoning is that polygraph results alone do not stop entrants or block promotions.

8. A mental health and social work unit should be available to all officers, including those on suspension.