Cop on murder charge loses lawsuit against Commissioner

AN injunction which prevented Police Commissioner Gary Griffith from firing a police officer who is awaiting trial for murder has been lifted.

On Friday, Justice Ricky Rahim discharged the injunction which prevented Griffith from firing PC Safraz Juman pursuant to regulation 32(1), or by retirement.

Rahim ruled that Juman’s judicial review claim was premature since no decision had been 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. The three 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 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, seeking to challenge 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 that 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.

“…The court finds that despite its verbiage at times, the letter clearly sets out that a decision was taken to either dismiss the claimant for inefficiency or retire him in the public interest subject to any representations he may make as to why this should not be the case,” he added.

Although he dismissed Juman’s claim and ordered him to pay costs, the judge offered guidance to the commissioner on the processes for firing or retiring an officer since in Juman’s case, the process might have started “without having fully considered the legal implications.”

“The court trusts that the defendant will pay heed to the guidance provided out of fairness to the claimant and avail himself of appropriate action to assuage any impending unintended legal consequence,” Rahim said.

Additionally, he said the failure, or refusal, by the commission to give evidence on the letter, which had his signature, was a troubling feature of the case.

“To compound matters, he gave no reasons for so doing. The court finds this particularly troubling as there is no dispute that the office of Commissioner of Police is a public office that carries out a public function,” the judge said. He also added that in public law matters, the commissioner was answerable for his decisions and was duty bound to give reasons for them.

“Such reasons must come from or be reflective of the mind of the maker of the decision maker and ought to be presented to the court in proper evidential form. To act otherwise would be to either betray a fundamental lack of appreciation of the public function of the office or an approach that does not lend itself to good administrative practices,” he said but made it clear he was not making a finding on the issue.

At a media briefing in June, Griffith said he was seeking to clean up the police service and improve its image.

Tribunals are being put in place so hearings can start soon. Juman was also ordered to pay the commissioner’s costs of the failed injunction proceedings and the claim.

Attorneys Rishi Dass, Avaria Niles and Kezia Redhead represented the commissioner.