Ex-SORT head challenges promotion process for ASPs

A High Court judge has ordered the Commissioner of Police to halt the promotion assessment process for the rank of Assistant Superintendent of Police (ASP) until she comes to court to justify it.

The temporary injunction was granted by Justice Frank Seepersad on October 2, to Insp Mark Hernandez, the former head of the police service’s now-defunct Special Operations Response Team (SORT).

The matter will come up for a hearing on October 7, when the commissioner will be allowed to be heard on the injunction.

Hernandez, who is on suspension pending criminal charges against him, is challenging the promotion process for ASPs as he contends the procedure being used is contrary to the Police Service Act and Police Service Regulations.

In an oral ruling, Seepersad said there was an arguable case for judicial review since, in the public’s interests, it relates to the promotion of first-division police officers.

“It cannot be in the public’s best interest if the process is in breach of the statutory criteria.”

He said there was no dispute that the court was empowered to uphold the Constitution and the rule of law. He said the rule of law required that those in the exercise of their power and authority must do so lawfully and comply with their statutory obligations.

“The TTPS provides a most essential public service. It is paramount we have an effective functioning institution best poised to serve the interests of citizens and uphold the rule of law.”

He said if the complaints about the process were accurate, then it would undermine the statutory intent of the promotion process vested with the commissioner to determine officers’ performance and advancement to a higher rank.

Seepersad also said it would not only affect the ethos of the organisation but also demoralise other officers.

Central to Hernandez’s claim is that the three-part process for assessing officers for promotion to the rank of ASP is set out in a written policy and the police service regulations but they are not being followed.

Hernandez’s attorney, Gerald Ramdeen, argued the challenge was “unique” and was not confined to his client.

He said the first component of the process entailed an appraisal system similar to a staff report in the public service but because of the “systemic failure to implement the policy, everyone gets the same mark.”

He contended a universal score of “outstanding” was given to inspectors by their superiors. This aspect is weighted at 25 per cent.

However, Ramdeen said the award of this “universal mark of outstanding” was contrary to the TTPS’s policy and contrary to the statutory aim of achieving a merit-based system of promotion.

“Nothing is done pursuant to the policy. What happens is the supervising officer gives a mark of outstanding… Because of the systemic failure to implement the policy, everyone gets the same mark.”

Hernandez received an “outstanding” mark before he was charged in 2021, and in July, he received an invitation to a briefing session by Odyssey ConsultInc for assessment to the rank of ASP.

He has also challenged the second aspect of the promotion process which is a written examination. Ramdeen said this part is weighted at 35 per cent and officers who score below the 50 per cent pass mark are not allowed to advance to the final step which is an oral assessment/interview which carries 40 per cent.

However, he contended from information Hernandez received, that some officers did not achieve the 50 per cent pass mark but were permitted to advance to the final stage.

“Good administration is at the heart of what we are arguing here.”

Hernandez is also challenging the composition of the panel of interviewers in the final stage, saying the panels put together by Odyssey are not in keeping with the police service regulations.

“Parliament has set out the minimum criteria for the members of the panel.”

Ramdeen contends the commissioner has no authority to breach the regulations and if they are to be altered, it is for Parliament to do so.

“At each stage, there are procedural improprieties and substitutions in conflict with the Police Service Act, regulations and lawful process.”

He also disclosed that assessment exercises were originally expected to be held on October 5, but have since been rescheduled and the publication of the order of merit list had moved to October 10.

In his affidavit in support of his lawsuit, Hernandez contends the process potentially discriminated against tactical police officers.

“I have given my entire professional life to the service of the TTPS. It has always been my professional goal to protect and serve the people of this country and I have consistently attempted to achieve that intention in my professional and public life.

“I do not wish to be the subject of a system that is procedurally unfair in judging and assessing my promotional prospects neither do I wish my colleagues to be subjected to such a process.

“Promotion to any rank in the first division of the TTPS must be conducted fairly and transparently and lawfully.”

There is currently a series of lawsuits by various ranks in the police service complaining of different aspects of the promotion process.

In the most recent, two acting ACPs and a senior superintendent are challenging the assessment process for first-division officers as it relates to the composition of the panels for the oral assessments.

They have been permitted to pursue their challenge against the CoP and Odyssey ConsultInc Ltd (OCL).

Hernandez is also represented by Jagdeo Singh, Dayadai Harripaul and Nerissa Bala.