Appeal Court refuses to stop new interview for police sergeant

AN APPEAL Court judge has refused to stop a judge’s directive to the police promotion advisory board (PAB) to re-interview a police sergeant who applied for the post of inspector, but fell ill during an interview in 2020.

In a ruling on Wednesday, Justice of Appeal Ronnie Boodoosingh held that in balancing the potential effects of a stay on the parties, the greater risk of injustice lay in delaying Sophia Narine’s re-interview any further.

On March 28, Justice Margaret Mohammed declared Narine had been treated unfairly when she was told it was not the policy of the PAB to re-interview applicants, although it had done so before, and the head of the board assured her she would get another chance at the interview.

Mohammed ordered the PAB to re-interview Narine within 21 days of her order. However, the board did not comply in the timeframe directed by the judge and an appeal was filed.

Ahead of the hearing of the appeal, attorneys for the PAB asked for a stay of the judge’s orders. While dismissing the stay application, Boodoosingh gave directions for the hearing of an expedited appeal.

Narine had gone to the PAB interview on October 10, 2020, at the Maloney Police Station. During the interview, she had a panic attack and was taken to Medical Associates for treatment.

The next day, acting Deputy Commissioner of Police Beverly Lewis told her she would get another interview.

However, on December 10, 2020, Lewis told her the commissioner had decided not to allow the re-interview. She was awarded a score of 7.5 out of 25 for the interview and placed at number 405 on the order of merit list.

Narine filed her claim. Boodoosingh said Lewis's representations to Narine that in the past interviews had been rescheduled appeared to be at odds with the board's position that there was a policy which prohibited re-interviews.

“The determination that re-interviews were not permitted came after the police legal unit and the Commissioner of Police had pronounced that reinterviews are against the policy and practice of the board.

“This is notwithstanding that the chair of the board was prepared to and did recommend a re-interview,” Boodoosingh pointed out.

He said the case turned on the specific and peculiar facts in the uncontested evidence that Narine was not ill before the interview but during the course of it.

“At its highest, the principle the case established is that where someone falls ill during an interview such that they are unable to continue, the board is entitled to consider whether a re-interview or continuation of an interview should be allowed in light of the facts, evidence and circumstances presented.

“It does not establish, as is contended by the board, that the board must re-interview anyone who thinks they should be re-interviewed.”

Mohammed, he said, held that a blanket policy was unfair, irrational and contrary to law, and cited various authorities on discretion.

In his ruling, Boodoosingh said an appellate court was constrained by settled jurisprudence to interfere with a judge’s finding of fact. In this case, he said, after reviewing the evidence and the law, the PAB would have an uphill task to persuade an appeal court to overturn Mohammed’s findings.

He said Mohammed, by her ruling, did not determine that anyone who asks for a re-interview must be given one.

“It would be difficult to conceive that the board would not reschedule an interview if, for example, someone is infected with a seriously infectious disease a day or two before an interview or if someone suffers cardiac arrest on the day of the interview or during it.”

He said contrary to the PAB’s assertions, the case does not open any floodgate.

“There is no evidence before the court that illness of the instant kind, happens en masse.

“There is no evidence before the court that the judgment has led to any flood of requests for reinterviews.

“It would be startling if this had occurred having regard to the fact that these interviews took place in 2020. There was, at best, speculation that it might lead to that in the future.”

He said the PAB still had full autonomy to decide if an exceptional circumstance called for a re-interview.

“This would have to be addressed on a case-by-case basis and depending on the circumstances presented. The present case, from the evidence placed before the judge, appeared to present an exceptional circumstance.”

He also noted there was no written policy on re-interviews. In Narine’s case, he also said the PAB can formulate new questions for a re-interview.

“The board members are required to conduct interviews as part of the regulations under which they act and they are required to do so rationally and fairly.

“Having to convene another hearing for Ms Narine cannot be said to prejudicial (to the board). Ms Narine is the person primarily prejudiced by the decision not to re-interview her and she continues to be prejudiced even after the judge’s order.”

He said if the PAB’s appeal succeeds, Narine’s re-inteview score can be discarded.

Narine is represented by Anand Ramlogan, Renuka Rambhajan, Jayanti Lutchmedial, Jared Jagroo, Natasha Bisram and Ganesh Saroop.

Representing the PAB are Justin Phelps, Adita Ramdula, Amrita Ramsook and Khadine Matthew.