A SENIOR High Court judge has defended a colleague amidst criticisms from the Prime Minister on statements made in a ruling over delays by Police Commissioner Erla Harewood-Christopher in deciding on Firearm User’s Licence (FUL) applications.
On March 25, Justice Frank Seepersad issued a stinging rebuke of the explanations given to the court in the commissioner’s defence to the lawsuit over a Tobago businessman's seven-year wait for an FUL.
On March 26, Dr Rowley said Seepersad went “overboard” with his criticisms of the commissioner. It is not the first time a judge has been chastised by a politician. In May 2023, the Judiciary condemned a statement alleging criminals had friends in the Judiciary. Seepersad also previously criticised the questioning of his visit to the Port of Spain prison in a case in April 2023.
Days after the Prime Minister’s statements, Seepersad was again defended by a colleague.
“The courts are inundated with applications for judicial review based on the Commissioner's failure to make decisions relative to FULs.
“The decision vests with the commissioner under section 17 of the Firearms Act. The Executive plays no role in the process.”
The judge pointed out that the State, through the Office of the Attorney General, was not involved in the case before Seepersad.
"It is therefore odd and inappropriate for the Prime Minister to attack the judge and he is not in a position to say that the judge went a ' bit overboard'.
“It is clear when one reads the judgment that the judge simply suggested a policy review based on the prevailing societal state and there was no usurping of the role vested in the Executive and the Parliament.”
In his ruling, Seepersad said, “It is simply outrageous that a sitting commissioner would elect to adopt a, “Well I have plenty work to do” stance, in defence of the delay which has transpired in this case.
“To suggest that one core function is more important than another is a classic “cop-out” stance which does not instil any confidence as to the office holder’s capacity or capability to discharge the required statutory obligations,” he added.
Written submissions on behalf of the commissioner had noted that it was “unfathomable to expect that the intended defendant spends her days rendering decisions on FUL applications having regard to the plethora of issues within the ambit of her position, such as the crime rate inclusive of gun-related violence, as well as managing the human and financial resources of the service.”
Various tables were provided to outline the commissioner’s duties.
“Notwithstanding the plethora of duties, the intended defendant must be very meticulous in making
determinations on FUL applications.
“... Suffice to say, the obligations of the intended defendant are vast and each of grave importance as they directly impact the safety of each individual within the Republic of Trinidad and Tobago. “The intended defendant is constitutionally bound to ensure that the TTPS is effectively and efficiently managed to ensure public sa
