Judge warns authorities on conduct after 2011 SoE raid lawsuit

A High Court judge has cautioned members of the protective services to be mindful of their language and conduct while executing their duties.

Justice Frank Seepersad gave the advice after ruling in favour of a Chaguanas woman who endured degrading treatment during a 2011 state of emergency (SoE) raid.

Seepersad awarded Sujes McIntosh $60,000 plus interest for assault, battery and false imprisonment after she and six others were subjected to mistreatment by soldiers and Coast Guard officers during a raid at Gaspar Grande on August 31, 2011.

McIntosh was among a group of four men – one of whom was her boyfriend – and three women at a house on the island off Chaguaramas when soldiers and Coast Guard personnel stormed the premises around 4 am. She recounted that everyone in the house was taken to the beachfront before being forced back inside.

According to her lawsuit, the men were called upstairs first, and she heard screams, breaking objects, and what sounded like beatings. The three women were then summoned, made to kneel, and forced to hold empty bottle cases over their heads while being interrogated about drugs and guns.

She testified that soldiers made derogatory remarks, questioning if they were lesbians and mocking their appearance.

Among the statements were: “Allyuh is zamie?”

“What are you doing here with these ugly fellows?”

“Watch your face. You have a kind of F—face.”

“I wouldn’t put myself with you.”

McIntosh also alleged that she was slapped so hard her vision blurred and she felt dizzy.

Seepersad found McIntosh to be a credible witness, describing her testimony as “unshakable,” while deeming the State’s version of events “highly implausible.” He ruled that the derogatory statements were indeed made and strongly condemned the behaviour of the officers involved.

“This is not the type of conduct that can ever be found to be acceptable by persons discharging the authority of law enforcement,” Seepersad stated. “Whether under emergency powers, the Defence Force Act, or the Police Service Act, officers must uphold professionalism.”

He further criticised the “sexualisation” of the interrogation, saying the comments had “no business in proper law enforcement.” He warned that personal biases must not interfere with public duties.

“Sexualisation of the state of affairs and the imputation they were in a lesbian type of relationship or crossing of the line about her choice of partner has no business in proper law enforcement.

“Personal views should not be expressed when engaging public functions,“ Seepersad said.

Seepersad also noted that the 2011 SoE led to numerous legal challenges, exposing what he described as an “unorthodox and unregulated” approach to emergency powers.

He said officers operated with “limited guidelines, no clear process, and a haphazard approach,” whether under anti-gang legislation or other laws.

Seepersad reminded that emergency powers did not give law enforcement the authority to “terrorise citizens or trample upon their constitutional rights and protections.”

There were other lawsuits arising from the 2011 raid, with at least one already settled by the State. However, Seepersad said that each case had to be judged on its individual merits.

McIntosh was represented by attorney Garvin Narine-Ramsepaul and Sandhyaa Ramberran, while attorney Tricia Ramlogan appeared for the State.