Court increases award to ex-regiment cadet for unlawful discharge

THE Court of Appeal has increased the compensation awarded to a former Defence Force officer cadet from $18,000 to $320,000.

The revised award comes after the High Court found the cadet's 2018 discharge violated the principles of natural justice.

Justices of Appeal Prakash Moosai, Vasheist Kokaram and Malcolm Holdip increased Justice Jacqueline Wilson’s 2021 award.

In his appeal, the ex-officer cadet asked for Wilson’s order to be set aside and for the Appeal Court to impose a figure since, he argued, the judge failed to account for loss of earnings, calling the discharge decision arbitrary and procedurally flawed.

The ex-cadet and six others faced charges in 2017 related to an incident at the Crow’s Nest jetty. Their eventual discharge arose from an incident which allegedly took place on October 29, 2016, in an out-of-bounds area called the Crow’s Nest, where the male officer cadets and one female cadet engaged in activities such as drinking alcohol.

Investigations into the incident began in February 2017, and they were interviewed and asked to submit reports. They did so and on March 16, 2017, they were charged with offences of disobeying commands prohibiting entry to an out-of-bounds area and disobedience to standing orders by consuming alcohol.

They pleaded guilty and the sanction imposed on them was that they were to be admonished.

They were later dismissed.

The four, who also faced sexual-offences charges which are still before the courts, were discharged under a TTDF "zero-tolerance policy" for those charged with criminal offences.

In 2020, Justice Eleanor Donaldson-Honeywell ruled in their favour on one of the grounds of their challenge and quashed the discharge decision.

In his separate lawsuit, the ex-officer cadet, who hails from Princes Town, said he was not involved in what took place at the jetty, since he returned to quarters with a colleague who had begun vomiting.

“Although I did not remain or involve myself with the activities of the other cadets, I was charged.”

Those charges were disobeying an order not to enter an out-of-bounds area, disobeying standing orders by consuming alcohol other than in the officers’ mess, and conduct to the prejudice of good order and military discipline by colluding with other officer cadets to conceal the facts of what took place on that night.

His discharge was on the ground that he failed to qualify for selection as an officer cadet.

“I found this strange as I was never tried or requested to make representations regarding my qualifications.

“I relied on the continuous assurances received from the defendant regarding my future at the TTDF (in) whom confidence and trust were placed that there was nothing to worry about, to not speak to anyone nor seek legal advice due to the sensitive nature and that I would not be discharged and that this was a minor infraction.”

His claim complained that the procedure for summary trial was administratively flawed.

He also contended that his guilt was pronounced without a fair trial. He said there was a long-standing practice that cadets who are summarily charged and admonished are not doubly punished, but he was, as he was not allowed to retain his appointment.

He said he was summarily found guilty and admonished, but had not been convicted by a criminal court, which the Defence Force failed to consider.

“No evidence was adduced from me. No evidence was adduced from anyone else in my presence. No facts were read to me.”

He also said he was not allowed to appeal his dismissal before the Defence Council.

“The procedures adopted in my discharge were wrong in law and contrary to the principles of natural justice.”

In her ruling, Donaldson-Honeywell said the ex-cadets should have been given notice of the reasons for the intention to discharge them and allowed to make representations.

Donaldson-Honeywell said it was recognised that the TTDF student standing orders gave the authority for a recommendation where any cadet was found to have committed breaches, but there was no indication to whom the recommendation should be made.

She noted that while they did write and sign statements admitting the conduct for which they were convicted, this did not mean consideration “ought not to have been given by the decision-maker, who decided on their discharge, whether they should have been afforded to make representation, and whether they had qualified to be cadets.”

Attorneys Arden Williams and Shelly-Ann Daniel represented the ex-cadet.