Re Johnson

• Jurisdiction: Anguilla
• Judge: Hariprashad-Charles, J.
• Judgment Date: 29 January 2002
• Neutral Citation: AI 2002 HC 3
• Court: High Court (Saint Christopher, Nevis And Anguilla)
• Date: 29 January 2002
• Docket Number: Civil Suit No. 111 of 2000

High Court

Hariprashad-Charles, J.

Civil Suit No. 111 of 2000

Re: Johnson

Appearances:

Mr. Patrick Patterson for the applicant.

Mr. Ivor Greene for the respondents.

Administrative Law - Judicial review — Application for certiorari to quash the decision of the Commissioner of Police to dismiss the appellant — The alleged misconduct was not brought to the attention of the officer, so he could be given a fair opportunity to meet the complaint — There was no inquiry which involved a fair trial and fair evaluation of the whole evidence — Commissioner's decision was arbitrary and unreasonable — Certiorari granted.

1 HARIPRASHAD-CHARLES J: The applicant, Eardley Johnson is a National of St. Vincent and the Grenadines. He successfully completed his studies at the St. Vincent Testimonial College in January 1999 gaining six GCE O' Levels and CXC. In late 1998, he applied to the Royal Anguilla Police Force to be a Member. In January 1999, he received a call from Anguilla to proceed to Barbados to attend the Police Training School as a Member of the Royal Anguilla Police Force. He did well. His overall class position was 7th out of 25; his course position was 13th out of 49. There are 15 categories for which students gain marks. Johnson was 1st in his class in 8 of the categories. His strengths were in academic performance. In his report, the Commandant remarked: “Johnson was one of the most affable persons on this course. His conduct, deportment and performance were good.”

2 On 27th day of February 1999, the applicant was appointed a Member of the Royal Anguilla Police Force on probation. He was twenty years old at the time. Young Johnson arrived in Anguilla on 19th day of June 1999 and took up his employment immediately. He was an exceptionally diligent policeman. He worked well and scored high marks. In a Local Procedure Course held from 11th to 22nd September 2000, Johnson scored 153 points out of 200 in the written examination which was a Grade C. His course report recorded Johnson to be “a very highly motivated student.” He was active during the sessions and made very good contributions in class discussions. He shared his knowledge and experience and his colleagues were able to benefit from such. His report also stated “Johnson does not appear to be a very serious officer and needs to improve greatly in that area if he intends to be an asset to the institution.”

3 All in all, Johnson excelled as a law enforcement officer. He was given a satisfactory report. But, there were a few shortcomings. His disciplinary and complaints records indicated that the very next day after the Local Procedure Course terminated, Johnson failed to turn up for duty. Then there were five subsequent allegations made against him; none of which had been proved.

4 Next came the more serious allegations made by a young lady, Sharlene Rawlings with whom he was romantically involved and who is the mother of his nine month old daughter. On 30th day of August 2000, the applicant was summoned to the Office of the Commissioner of Police. Sharlene Rawlings was there and she made some complaints concerning the applicant's behaviour. According to the Commissioner, the meeting was informal and the applicant was free to make any comment or statement. Ms. Rawlings alleged that the applicant was not supporting the child of their union and that he had been abusive to her. She also alleged that on one occasion the applicant locked their seven month old baby in the house by herself. She also produced a long piece of metal and said that the applicant kept it under his pillow and has threatened to kill her with it. The applicant denied all of the allegations. He however admitted the ownership of the metal object but emphatically denied having it under his pillow. He explained that he kept it in his car.

5 On 27th day of October 2000, the applicant was again summoned to the Office of the Commissioner of Police. Acting Deputy Commissioner Illidge Richardson and Acting Superintendent Carl Ruan were present together with the Commissioner of Police, Mitchell Harrigan. This summons and subsequent dismissal by the Commissioner may have been fuelled by an incident which allegedly occurred in the wee hours of the morning of this day. I will narrate the story as briefly as I can but some detail is inevitable. There was a power failure on the island minutes after midnight of the 27th day of October 2000. The Commissioner of Police, being a dedicated and efficient Law Enforcement Officer visited the Valley Police Station at about 4.00 a.m. to ensure that the island was properly patrolled and later went to the Residence of the Governor where he found no police officer stationed at the gate where officers are normally positioned. The applicant was the designated officer on duty on the morning in question. According to the Commissioner, he made two calls on the police radio with no response. Five minutes later, the applicant responded that he was there.

6 This incident was put to the applicant on the morning in question and he maintained that he was at the Residence of the Governor. The Commissioner interrogated him further and asked him if he was there, how come he was not visible. According to the Commissioner, the applicant refused to answer.

7 The applicant alleged that he was unaware of the reasons for his attendance at the Office of the Commissioner on the day in question. He next alleged that he was not given an opportunity to put his case before the Commissioner nor was he charged with any disciplinary offence under the Police Regulations. He further alleged that the Commissioner of Police took irrelevant matters into consideration and was motivated to dismiss him by virtue of the fact that he was romantically involved with his daughter, a relationship which the Commissioner disapproves of. The evidence of the Commissioner of Police is diametrically opposed to that alleged by the applicant. What is however certain is that on this auspicious day, the applicant received his marching orders relieving him of his duties with effect from 31st day of October 2000.

8 The unhappy chronology of events culminated in the filing of this motion, as amended. The applicant seeks the following orders:

• (i) An Order of Certiorari to remove into this Honourable Court and to quash the decision of the Commissioner of Police of Anguilla made on the 27th day of October 2000 wherein he dismissed the applicant from his post of probationary Police Officer.

• (ii) An Order of mandamus directed to the Commissioner of Police directing him to comply with the rules of natural justice and to hear or properly hear the applicant in relation to the matters for which the Commissioner of Police sought to dismiss him.

• (iii) An Order of Prohibition to prohibit the Chief Immigration Officer his servants and/or agents from removing and or causing the applicant to be removed from the island of Anguilla and or requiring the said applicant to leave the Island of Anguilla before the Governor of Anguilla has considered and made a decision as to the issue of the revocation of the applicant's Permanent Residency Status.

• (iv) Damages.

THE POWER OF THE COURT

9 In Chief Immigration Officer of the British Virgin Islands v. Burnett (1995) 50 W.I.R. 153 at page 158, Sir Vincent Floissac, Chief Justice said:

“There is no doubt that the High Court has an inherent jurisdiction (either by way of judicial review or otherwise) to supervise and judicially control certain decisions and actions of public authorities constituted by law to make those decisions or to take those actions. Subject to the formalities prescribed by rules of court, the jurisdiction is exercisable whenever a public authority (purporting to exercise a constitutional, statutory or prerogative power) has made or taken or intends to make or take a justiciable judicial, quasi-judicial or administrative decision or action which affects or will affect a complainant who has locus standi by way of a relevant or sufficient interest in the decision or action and who alleges and proves that the decision or action is or will be illegal, irrational or procedurally improper.”

10 It is therefore clear that decisions of the Commissioner of Police and the Chief Immigration Officer fall within the purview of the High Court.

11 The applicant's submissions, reduced to its bare essentials are as follows:

• (i) That the Commissioner of Police failed to comply with the Rules of Natural Justice;

• (ii) That the Commissioner of Police erred in failing to utilize the Disciplinary Regulations under the Anguilla Police Ordinance;

• (iii) That the Commissioner of Police misdirected himself and took irrelevant matters into consideration and

• (iv) That the applicant had a legitimate expectation that the permission to enter would not be withdrawn or revoked.

(i) RULES OF NATURAL JUSTICE

12 Mr. Patrick Patterson appearing for the applicant submitted that the Commissioner of Police failed to comply with the Rules of Natural Justice in that he dismissed the applicant from the Royal Anguilla Police Force using the provisions contained in section 11 of the Anguilla Police Ordinance 1972 purportedly on the basis that the applicant was” not likely to become an efficient and well conducted police officer at the end of the period of probation or any extension thereof.”

13 According to learned counsel, the manner of this dismissal was premised on the belief held by the Commissioner that his discretion was absolute and the dismissal was effected in a way that it did not comply with the Rules of Natural Justice as is required under the law and is therefore void.

14 Counsel argued that section 11 of the Anguilla Police Ordinance, 1972 is on par with reg. 16(1) of the Police Regulations 1971[UK] and does not give the Commissioner of Police an absolute discretion to dismiss the applicant who was a...