NGO wants harsher penalties for police who fail to attend court

ATTORNEY Lee Merry, director of High Tide Project, a non-profit Caribbean police-reform organisation incorporated in TT, is calling for harsher penalties for police officers who fail to attend court, which leads to cases being thrown out.

Merry and Kashka Hemans, both attorneys, are founders of the organisation.

The duo sought information on disciplinary proceedings against absent officers on February 8, and received a response on June 18. A similar exercise will be done in other Caribbean islands soon.

It is expected that the next country will be Jamaica, of which Hemans is a citizen.

Merry told Newsday not enough is being done to encourage officers to attend court.

Merry, a former prosecutor, said while he believes disciplining officers is commendable, the number of officers disciplined was far too low compared with the number of cases dismissed.

“Even when they are identified and disciplined, which is not often as far as we understand, no-show officers are simply fined one or two days' pay. The lack of accountability means that officers are not deterred from missing their cases, or, to put it another way, they are not encouraged to attend court and take their job as complainants seriously.”

He added this lack of accountability fosters a culture where officers feel they can charge whoever they like and then simply fail to show up.

“The only way to stop this cycle is to identify and punish, with serious penalties, all officers whose action or inaction leads to the collapse of a criminal case.”

Between 2015 and 2020, 88 police officers were disciplined for failing to attend court, resulting in the cases being dismissed. The punishments for their crimes were a pay cut for one to three days.

Failing to attend court is a category B offence and carries a maximum fine of ten days' pay and is presided over by one senior police officer above the rank of superintendent.

Police not only to blame

Newsday spoke with head of the police association, acting ASP Gideon Dickson, who said the officers who are disciplined are the ones reported to the police complaints department.

He explained that after a matter is dismissed for want of prosecution, the police assigned to the courts have a duty to report the matter and an internal investigation will be done.

If the reason for missing court is not satisfactory, a one-man tribunal is set up to adjudicate.

Responding to the data provided to High Tide, Dickson said delays in court, ending in case dismissals, should not be a case of pointing fingers at police officers. He admitted there were various delays on the police side, such as collecting exhibits from the Forensic Sciences Centre, but said there were also delays on the defence side which contribute to cases being thrown out.

“Many times the defence finds crafty ways to prolong a matter because it is an ‘eat ah food' principle. We need to be fair in terms of how we point our finger, because what we have to do is look at the cases that the officers charged people for. The cases that are dismissed are a microcosm of the cases.”

He added that police officers continue to do their part and while attending court is a priority, they are called to be on various police activities that sometimes trump court appearances.

He disagreed that punishments for missing court should be increased. He also suggested that officers be allowed to appear in court only when their cases are set for trial.

A serious business

President of the Law Association Sophia Chote, SC, agreed that delays are both a prosecutorial and defence issue, but said the fact that cases are dismissed because of police failure to appear in court, had nothing to do with the defence. She suggested, “(It) seems as though it’s an attempt to deflect responsibility from the police.

“I do not say that all attorneys always act responsibly, just like police officers always act responsibly. At the end of the day, though, if you are the person that brought the defendant to court, you have a duty to the court to show up when required.”

A Police Service Commission (PSC) report laid in Parliament, last year, said at the end of 2019, 1,843 cases were dismissed because police complainants failed to attend court. Of those cases, 793 were for serious crimes.

Serious crimes include shooting, possession of arms and ammunition and rape.

From 2015-2019 a total of 7,659 cases were dismissed solely on the basis of the non-appearance of police officers, with 2019 having the highest figure.

From the information provided to the High Tide Project, in the Western Division, one officer had 14 matters dismissed as a result of his not appearing in court.

They included possession of a firearm, possession of ammunition and possession of both with intent to endanger life. The matters were dismissed in 2018, 2019 and 2020, and he was fined, at most, two days' pay.

The information also showed that, in total, 12 officers were reprimanded in the Western Division between 2015 and 2020 and ten from the Inter Agency Task Force for that period.

Between 2015 and 2020, 24 officers assigned to the North Eastern Division Task Force had to be disciplined. That was followed by the Criminal Investigation Department (CID), which saw 15 officers being disciplined. The data for CID did not specify which police station the officers were assigned as CID is a component of most police stations.

Chote said cases are dismissed because of a lack of police presence after several attempts to have the officer appear in court fail, or no reasonable excuse is provided for their absence.

On officers only showing up when their cases are set for trial, Chote said that would not be a straightforward matter, as in some cases the complainant needs to be present just to keep witnesses and victims at ease and apprised of the case.

For lengthy adjournments, some magistrates allow the officer to appear when needed. Chote agreed it could be done on a case-by-case basis.

She said disciplining officers who fail to appear in court is a positive thing as it reminds them of the seriousness of their responsibilities.

Harsher penalty recommended

On February 25, Snr Supt Nazrudeen Pragg, of the Court and Process Branch recommended that failing to attend court should be raised from a Category B to a Category A offence.

This would allow the Police Commissioner to suspend or even dismiss officers who fail to attend court.

In January 2019, head of the police service’s legal unit Christian Chandler told Newsday his aim was to reduce the number of cases thrown out of court for lack of police attendance.

He said then: "I definitely want to improve the prosecution arm of the police service. What I intend to do is to revisit some of the regulations in the Police Service Act. Police have to make attending court their priority; that is something that has been falling by the wayside. One of my intentions is to ensure police attend court so that cases will not collapse due to their absence."

According to the PSC data, in 2015, 1,019 cases were dismissed; the following year the number increased to 1,345, then1,825 in 2017. In 2018, the year Griffith was appointed, absenteeism dropped to 1,627.

One of Griffith’s boasts since assuming office was his ability to drastically reduce absenteeism in court. Last September, Griffith addressed this issue, saying it was the one blemish on his appraisal from the PSC. He said then he worked “day and night” to address it. At a media briefing he said with his intervention there was a 97 per cent reduction in absenteeism between 2019 and 2020 for the period Apri-June.

The information provided to Half Tide Project showed that in 2016, the NEDTF disciplined the most officers – a total of eight – who were responsible for the collapse of ten cases that year.

For the period, 38 cases had to be thrown out for lack of prosecution. They included obstructing a police officer, assault by beating and possession of marijuana for trafficking.

The CID had the second highest the following year, with seven officers being disciplined. The offences in the cases affected included robbery with violence, obscene language and possession of marijuana.