Ex-coast guard tries to block court martial over damaged vessel

AN ex-Lt Commander of the Coast Guard is challenging a decision by his commanding officer and the Chief of Defence Staff to charge him for alleged damage to a patrol vessel in 2021.

On Wednesday, Justice Karen Reid-Ballantyne granted leave to the commissioned officer as well as ordered a stay of a military court martial until June 22, or unless further ordered.

In his lawsuit, the ex-officer, with 22 years service with the Coast Guard, alleged that he was wrongly and unlawfully accused of the damage to the cape-class patrol boat, CG41 (TTS Port of Spain). He also claims he was forced to resign in 2022.

His lawsuit contends that there was an acknowledged defect to the vessel’s radar when it was handed over in 2021.

The four charges against him alleged that he, as captain of the vessel, was responsible for damage to it in February 2022, while out at sea in south Trinidad.

The charges further alleged that he neglected to investigate and report that the patrol board made contact with an unidentified submerged object resulting in damage to the propulsion system, gearbox and shaft and that through negligence, the vessel was “hazarded.”

The ex-officer contends the decision to convene the court martial on alleged infractions that were already “condoned” by senior officers was in contravention of section 130 of the Defence Act which prevents anyone from being tried for offences already disposed of.

His lawsuit further contends that assurances that he would not face charges amounted to an act of “condonation” provided for by section 130, so to pursue the court martial without investigation was in breach of his rights to the protection of the law.

The ex-officer said the consequences of the court martial are extreme as sentences, if found guilty, could range from incarceration for two years or an indefinite term and loss of his status as a commissioned officer as well as his dismissal from the Coast Guard.

He is asking the court to quash the decision to charge him as well as the decision to convene the court martial which he wants dissolved and an order of prohibition to prevent it from affecting his career.

In his lawsuit, several engineering reports were submitted as evidence as well as transcripts from the summary trial held by the Coast Guard.

The lawsuit said after the incident in February 2022, when the sound was heard while at sea, the vessel was put on a sea trial at Staubles Bay, Chaguaramas, and two dives were recorded and findings made.

Dives involve coast guardsmen going under the ship to inspect it. After this was done, findings were made and a board of inquiry (BOI) was convened.

The BOI was dissolved and the lawsuit claims the ex-officer was told that the defects would be written off as operational damage.

It also said he was not given an opportunity to address the video footage taken from the dives but was told he would be formally charged but had two options.

The first option, the lawsuit said, was that he resign and it would be written off as operational damage and he would face no charges nor would he lose his benefits once he proceeded on all annual leave.

The second option was that the BOI would be converted to a summary trial, charges would be laid and he would face a court martial and lose his status and terminal benefits.

The lawsuit said although he asked for time to consider his resignation, he was ordered to submit it the next day, which he did on April 17, 2022.

Initially five charges were laid but these were withdrawn and four new charges laid in January 2023, with the summary trial taking place in April. He pleaded not guilty to the charges and also objected to the unfairness of the process but the charges were sent to trial by court martial, which has now been stayed by the court.

No date has been set for the military trial.

The lawsuit also exhibited a letter to the Minister of National Security which provided a status report on the damages sustained to the TTS Port of Spain (CG41) and a quotation of $1,887,815.54 for repairs, a portion of which can be recovered from the person found responsible for the damage, as provided for in the Defence Act.

The ex- officer is represented by attorneys Arden Williams, Mariah Ramrattan and Anthony Moore.