Cop on murder charge loses lawsuit against CoP

AN injunction which prevented Police Commissioner Gary Griffith from firing a police officer awaiting trial for murder in the High Courts has been lifted.

On Friday, Justice Ricky Rahim discharged the injunction preventing Griffith from firing PC Safraz Juman pursuant to regulation 32(1), or by retirement, of the police service regulations until the matter was dealt with by the court. Rahim ruled Juman’s judicial review claim was premature, since no decision was made to either fire or retire him.

Juman is one of six policemen who on July 15, 2013, were committed to stand trial for the murders of Abigail Johnson, Alana Duncan and Kerron “Fingers” Eccles who were all shot in 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 and was suspended from duty in November 2011. On May 1, he received a letter from the commissioner, dated March 16, titled: Dismissal or Retirement of Safraz Juman from the TT Police Service.

According to the “somewhat lengthy letter,” Juman was told by the commissioner of his “contemplation to dismiss you or require you to retire” from the police service. Juman was instructed to submit a response on why he should not be dismissed or retired.

Juman’s attorneys Israel Khan, SC, and Ulric Skerritt filed a judicial review and constitutional claim on May 8, challenging the commissioner’s decision to fire him. They argued the decision would amount to an abuse of power, is unreasonable, irregular or an improper exercise of a discretion.

In relation to the purported decision to retire Juman in the alternative, the officer argued that it would be against the power of the commissioner. He also argued that the top cop took irrelevant factors into consideration in making the decision to either fire him or retire him.

Rahim said the letter sent to Juman sought to give him the opportunity to be heard on why he should not be dismissed for inefficiency or retired in the public interest.

“In that regard the defendant’s decision to start the process of either retiring the claimant in the public interest or dismissing him for inefficiency demonstrates there has in fact been no dismissal and no decision to dismiss. That much is clear and the letter was a first step in that process. To that end, the decision alleged by the claimant does not exist and the claim appears to be a premature one,” Rahim ruled.

At a media briefing in June, Griffith said he was seeking to clean up the police service and improve its image. Tribunals were being put in place so hearings can start soon.