High Court again rules TTPS tattoo policy is unconstitutional

A HIGH Court judge has ruled that the police’s tattoo policy for recruits is unconstitutional and has awarded $300,000 in damages to recruit who was disqualified because of his tattoos.

Justice Westmin James ruled that Daawuud Mohammed was unlawfully disquaified from joining his desired career because of an unconstitutional tattoo policy.

James held the police’s policy violated Mohammed’s rights to equality before the law, equality of treatment, and freedom of expression.

Mohammed, who successfully passed all recruitment stages except his final interview, was barred from proceeding in June 2023 due to tattoos on his right bicep and left triceps—one displaying his daughter’s name and the other a Quranic verse.

Acting on advice, he began tattoo removal procedures but was still denied entry because his tattoos were not yet fully removed. He was only allowed to resume his application after filing legal proceedings, finally commencing training in July 2024.

James said the case closely mirrored a similar case involving another recruit who was told he could not apply because of his ninja star tattoo.

In that case, Justice Frank Seepersad ruled the tattoo policy, in effect since 2011, was illegal and discriminatory.

James pointed out that the State in Dillon Ramraj case did not appeal Seepersad’s ruling but still denied Mohammed entry into the police service becasue of his tattoos.

“No corrective action was taken to address his situation in light of the court’s ruling. It was only after this claim was filed that the claimant was finally permitted to complete his final interview and commence training in July 2024—nearly a year after he was initially barred,” James said.

He also noted that the police neither conceded or admitted liability in Mohammed’s case.

James criticised the police for failing to correct its recruitment procedures and for continuing to apply an unconstitutional policy without justification.

“There is no reasonable, rational, or credible justification for this policy.

“The tattoo policy constitutes an arbitrary exercise of power, unfairly discriminates against individuals with tattoos, and creates an unjustifiable administrative barrier to employment in the TTPS.”

He also noted that a 2021 policy prohibited tattoos on recruits’ hands or anything visible beyond the sleeve cuff of their grey shirts, but Mohammed’s tattoos would have been covered by his uniform.

“The policy’s arbitrariness is further underscored by the fact that serving officers are permitted to have tattoos, while only recruits are restricted.

“In the absence of any compelling justification for this disparity, the policy remains arbitrary and irrational, breaching the claimant’s right to protection of the law.”

James also said the right to freedom of expression included the freedom to shape one’s identity.

“Tattoos are a recognised form of self-expression. The TTPS policy unlawfully restricted the claimant’s right to express himself, and the State failed to justify the policy as necessary for police service integrity.”

James ordered $25,000 for loss of opportunity, $125,000 for distress and inconvenience, and $150,000 in vindicatory damages to acknowledge the breach of constitutional rights.

“This case concerns a longstanding policy, in place since before 2011, that was maintained by the TTPS despite being declared unconstitutional for violating four constitutional rights,” James said.

“The State’s decision to continue defending this case, despite a prior judicial declaration of unconstitutionality and without offering any justification for the policy’s enforcement, underscores the need for such an award.

“The court cannot condone the arbitrary, unfair, and discriminatory nature of the TTPS's tattoo policy.

“Beyond affecting individuals within the police service, the policy sends a broader societal message about exclusion and non-acceptance. By upholding discriminatory practices based on physical appearance, the TTPS alienates potential recruits and undermines public trust and confidence in law enforcement.”

Anand Ramlogan, SC, Kent Samlal, Jared Jagroo, Natasha Bisram and Asha Ramlal represented Mohammed while Coreen Findley and Kadine Matthew represented the State.