Cop suing State for sharing his mugshot with media

A police officer who saw his police booking photo on several media sites is maintaining that this dissemination of his mugshot has violated his right to privacy.

Acting Cpl Narindra Beharry is now suing the State for the alleged breaches of his constitutional rights.

In January, Beharry was charged with assaulting a civilian at the Valencia police post on July 3, 2022.

Officers of the Professional Standards Bureau photographed him after he was charged, which he acknowledged was the standard procedure under the Police Service Act, which permits the taking of a photograph of someone who has been charged, for identification purposes.

Beharry said after he appeared in court virtually, he was shocked to see his mugshot in circulation in the print, television and social media, as well as on the police service’s Beyond the Tape television programme.

Beharry’s photograph accompanied a media release sent by the police communications department on January 13, 2023.

He says the mugshot is still in circulation on the internet.

Beharry is now asking the court to declare that this publication or dissemination of his mugshot is in contravention of his rights and that the police media policy on the circulation of information of those charged with criminal offences, including their name, address and mugshot, infringes the rights of citizens. He also wants compensation for the publishing of his photograph.

On Monday, his lawsuit came up for hearing before Justice Frank Seepersad, who raised concerns over the case.

"Is there legislation that prevents the circulation of such information?" Seepersad asked Beharry’s attorney, Kelson Pope.

Although admitting that there was none, Pope said his client was contending that the practice breached Section 50 of the Police Service Act, which permits the police to take photographs of those charged with criminal offences and allows the police commissioner to retain the photographs even if the subject is eventually freed.

The legislation "outlines that they (photographs) are to be used for identification purposes," Pope said.

Seepersad adjourned the matter to October.

Beharry said in an affidavit to support his lawsuit: "The publication of the information surrounding the charges against me has caused me significant anxiety, distress, and humiliation. I truly feel that everyone is talking about me in a negative way.

“Not only is the sharing of the information about my charges by the TTPS unlawful, it is also deeply unfair to me since I am presumed innocent. I intend to resume my work as a police officer once I am cleared of these charges and the existence of this information on the internet will not only be forever embarrassing to me but also to the service.”

Beharry contends that the police’s policy of disseminating the mugshots of police officers charged with criminal offences is discriminatory, since it is not done in certain “high-profile” cases, citing examples.

"I find it deeply unfair that certain high-profile figures can escape the embarrassment of having their mugshot distributed and shared throughout society," Beharry said.

In 2021, Justice Margaret Mohammed ordered the police commissioner to destroy mugshots and physical-measurement records of people acquitted of criminal offences who have no pending matters before the courts.

The order was made as she partially upheld a lawsuit challenging the constitutionality of an amendment to the act which empowers the police service to retain such sensitive data.

"In my opinion, the failure of the legislation to state a period of retention and to give the Commissioner of Police any power with regards to the destruction of such information means that a person who has been acquitted remains "under the eyes" of the police for the rest of his life even if he is innocent," Mohammed said.

She also ruled that the segment of the legislation was illegal, null, and void, and had no effect.

Mohammed dismissed a separate complaint which dealt with the keeping of fingerprint impressions taken from suspects and accused persons.

She ruled that those provisions were not offensive as they allowed the CoP to destroy the records 20 years after people were exonerated and limited access to the police fingerprint database.

"The purpose for the retention of the fingerprint data is consistent with the legislative objective of the detection and combating of crime," she said.

In February, Justice Carol Gobin also ruled on a lawsuit by a local golfer involving the police’s use of his mugshot, which accompanied a police press release when he was charged.

“What is involved here is as much a breach of a general right to privacy as it is a breach of a right to non-publication of a mugshot which is part of the wider due process and protection of the law that is afforded to persons charged and presumed innocent,” she said.

She said the Police Service Act provided a safeguard for the right to privacy of someone who had been detained, accused, and then discharged or acquitted, as well as someone presumed innocent.

She referred to Mohammed's decision and said in the case before her, in the absence of a reason by the police for publishing his photograph, she concluded that it was done to embarrass and humiliate him, as the law provided a limitation on the reason for taking one.

“This conduct is clearly not contemplated by the act and is unlawful.”

Since the ruling by both judges, the police no longer send out photos with their media releases when someone is charged with an offence.

Beharry is also represented by attorney Lee Merry.