Kenneth Millette v The Anguilla Public Service Commission

• Jurisdiction: Anguilla
• Court: High Court (Saint Christopher, Nevis And Anguilla)
• Judge: Moise, J.
• Judgment Date: 18 July 2025
• Neutral Citation: AI 2025 HC 7
• Year: 2025
• Docket Number: AXAHCV 2024/0075

Kenneth Millette

and

The Anguilla Public Service Commission

Moise, J.

AXAHCV 2024/0075

High Court

Appearances:

Mr Ivor Greene of counsel for the Defendants.

The Claimant is self-represented.

Moise, J.

1 The Claimant has commenced these proceedings for judicial review. The claim concerns various decisions of the Public Service Commission (PSC) relating to promotions within the ranks of the Royal Anguilla Police Force (RAPF), which the Claimant states were adverse to him. Essentially, he asserts that he has been overlooked for promotions despite his seniority over those who have been appointed to permanent and acting senior positions within the RAPF during the period 21st June 2022 to 21st October 2024. The Claimant therefore seeks various declarations, orders of certiorari and compensatory and other damages from the Defendant.

2 Having examined the facts presented in this case and the submissions put forward by the parties, I have determined that the PSC has breached the provisions of the Public Service Commission Regulations and that the Claimant is entitled to a declaration of such. I have, however, decided that the Claimant is not entitled to damages as a result of the breaches. I have also declined to make orders of certiorari quashing the various appointments. The reasons for my decision are outlined in the remainder of this judgment.

THE FACTS

3 The Claimant (hereinafter referred to as Insp. Millette) is an Inspector of Police within the RAPF. He commenced his career as a police officer in his native island of Grenada in 1991. After 16 years of service in that country, he migrated to Anguilla and was inducted into the RAPF on 1st August 2007. As stated in his claim, Insp. Millette joined the Regional Police Training Centre in Barbados as a training instructor and served two six-month stints in that capacity, between 2015 and 2017. He states, in his evidence, that during this period he met and was involved in the training of several recruits from Anguilla, many of whom remain in service in the RAPF to this day. Insp. Millette was promoted to the rank of Sergeant of Police in October 2016 and served in various capacities, including the Professional Standards Department and Police Prosecution.

4 Insp. Millette states that in 2019, it was determined that Anguilla should have its own training facility for new police recruits. At that point, the Anguilla Recruit Training Centre was established, and Insp. Millette was called upon to assist in that effort. He states that he was entrusted with the Training Centre's inauguration and operation and was appointed as Training Commandant of the facility with direct administrative and operational oversight of local recruits. He goes on to state that this training cohort also included a contingent of prison officers from Her Majesty's Prison.

5 Insp. Millette was promoted to the rank of Inspector of Police on 26th November 2018. He states in his evidence that from 2018 to 2020, and again from 2023 to the present, he served as Head of the Prosecution Department of the RAPF. He has therefore been responsible for the conduct of summary criminal and traffic matters in the Magistrates' Court. In addition to that, Insp. Millette's duties included leadership of the Professional Standards Department between 2020 and 2023. In his evidence, it was stated that for a sustained period, he had singular responsibility for the discharge of duties relating to three separate portfolios, namely, Head of Prosecution, Commandant of the Anguilla Recruit Training facility and Head of Cohorts relative to the response to the COVID-19 initiatives.

6 Insp. Millette's main complaint is that, despite his experience and credentials, he has been overlooked for promotion to the rank of Superintendent of Police since his appointment to the rank of Inspector. His main concern relates to the promotion of two police officers ahead of him. These officers are Supt. Shem Wills and now Supt. Vydia Harrigan. Insp. Millette complains that these two officers were appointed to acting and, in the case of Supt. Wills, permanent senior positions within the RAPF, in a manner which contravenes the Public Service Commission Regulations made under the Public Service Commission Act. Insp. Millette points to various sections within the regulations which highlight the value placed on seniority when considering promotions within the RAPF and public service in general. He complains that although Supt. Wills and he were promoted to the rank of Sergeant and later Inspector on the same dates, he was inducted into the RAPF two years prior to Supt. Wills. As such, he is the more senior of the two. Insofar as it relates to the now Supt. Harrigan, Insp. Millette complains that she was promoted to the rank of Inspector two years after him. She has nonetheless been placed in an acting superintendent position on many occasions. Since the filing and hearing of this claim, Ms Harrigan has been permanently appointed to the post of Superintendent.

7 Insp. Millette states that there is a policy within the RAPF that every inspector is to participate in a junior command course. This course is designed to assist the newly appointed inspectors in the discharge of their duties. Likewise, every superintendent is given the opportunity to do the senior command course. He complains that, for reasons which have not been explained to him, Supt. Harrigan appears to have been the one among the more recent cadre of inspectors who has been given the opportunity to do the junior command course. In what was an incomplete appraisal, which commenced in 2019, it was recommended that Insp. Millette undertake this course. He complains that to date, he has not been given the opportunity to do so.

8 As it relates to the various acting appointments of Supt. Harrigan, Insp. Millette asserts that whilst she was on probation in her rank of Inspector, she was selected on a number of occasions to act as Superintendent of police. This is a privilege which Insp. Millette states was never afforded to him, even though he was substantively an Inspector of police who was senior in that position. Insp. Millette claims to have been subject to humiliation by Supt. Harrigan, as a result of her exercise of authority over him whilst acting as a Superintendent in circumstances where she was in fact junior to him both in years of service and substantive rank within the RAPF. He presented in evidence examples of this humiliation in the form of warning letters and emails issued to him by then-acting Supt. Harrigan. In addition to that, Insp. Millette claims that the numerous acting appointments of Supt. Wills and Harrigan have allowed them to amass more experience in a more senior position, whilst he continued to be overlooked.

9 Insp. Millette makes the observation that the current practice within the RAPF, at least in respect of acting appointments to posts above the rank of Inspector, is that once an acting vacancy arises, the Commissioner of Police would inform the Department of Public Administration of the vacancy either through the Permanent Secretary or other official within that Department and, in due course, without more, the members of the RAPF would be informed via official email broadcast that some particular officer has been appointed to act in the post in question. The communication would take the form of a “routine order” from the Corporate Development Department of the RAPF. Insp. Millette describes this process as opaque. He states that the process gives the impression that the decisions for appointments are made by the Commissioner of Police, who then advises the PSC to act upon this decision.

10 Insp. Millette refers to a memo dated 3rd May 2023 in which the Commissioner of Police wrote to the Permanent Secretary, Mr Larry Franklin, advising that certain acting appointments had been made. In that same memo, the Commissioner states that he is seeking approval for Inspector Shem Wills to continue to act as Superintendent of Operations from the 1st April to 30th September 2023. The Commissioner goes on to state that approval of this recommendation is vital and will help maintain continuity within the Royal Anguilla Police Force. It was also stated that this is in keeping with the RAPF's succession planning and development of officers at the senior management rank. I note here that the copy of the memo exhibited in this case was unsigned. I take judicial notice of the fact that the current Police Commissioner in Anguilla was formally appointed to the post on 2nd May 2023.

11 Insp. Millette also goes on to raise concerns about a memo dated 2nd April 2023 and signed by then acting Supt. Shem Wills. That memo informed of a number of acting appointments within the RAPF, including that of Supt. Wills himself.

12 Being aggrieved, and in contemplation of taking legal action, Insp. Millette wrote to the Public Service Commission on 30th April 2024 seeking clarity on the procedure followed in appointments within the more senior ranks of the RAPF. He followed up on his letter on 29th and 31st May 2024. Insp. Millette also presented a table outlining all of the acting appointments of Supt. Wills and Supt. Harrigan, which he claims were in breach of the regulations as well as his own legitimate expectations. It is not necessary to repeat the entire list in full at this stage. I have, however, taken that evidence into account and will address it later on in this judgment.

13 In response to the claim, the Defendant led evidence from Ms. Monica Hodge (Ms. Hodge) who is the chairperson of the PSC. Ms. Hodge did not speak to the various acting appointments which took place over the years but gave evidence regarding the actual appointment of Shem Wills as Superintendent of Police. She states that a meeting of the PSC was held on 27th July 2023. During that meeting interviews were conducted with persons who...