作者： admin

In a significant ruling affirming military autonomy in personnel decisions, Justice Devindra Rampersad of the High Court has dismissed a judicial review claim filed by Coast Guard Lieutenant Jeffery Hernandez, who challenged the denial of his promotion based on unresolved disciplinary concerns.

The court determined that military authorities acted lawfully and rationally in considering Hernandez’s overall suitability for advancement, particularly regarding serious fraternization allegations dating to 2016. While acknowledging Hernandez met technical qualifications including seniority and examination requirements, Justice Rampersad emphasized that promotion within the Coast Guard remains discretionary and contingent on comprehensive suitability assessments beyond mere technical compliance.

The case centered on allegations that Hernandez, while serving as a training officer, maintained an inappropriate relationship with an officer cadet under his supervision, violating Defense Force fraternization policies. Although no court-martial determination had been reached on the four disciplinary charges filed in 2016, the court found commanding officers were justified in considering the institutional implications of these unresolved matters when evaluating promotion readiness.

Justice Rampersad’s ruling established a crucial distinction between punitive disciplinary proceedings and evaluative promotion decisions, noting that the presumption of innocence in criminal contexts does not prevent military leaders from assessing whether pending matters affect confidence in an officer’s fitness for higher command. The court found no evidence of unlawful, irrational, or procedurally improper conduct by promotion authorities.

The judgment also rejected Hernandez’s claim of legitimate expectation, noting the absence of any clear representation or settled practice guaranteeing automatic promotion based solely on seniority or examination results. The court accepted evidence that officers promoted ahead of Hernandez had met all eligibility requirements at relevant times.

Legal representation included Arden Williams, Mariah Ramrattan and Anthony Moore for Hernandez, while the state was represented by Natoya Moore and Raquel Le Blanc, instructed by Savitri Maharaj and Chelsea Downes.

In a significant judicial ruling, High Court Justice Joan Charles has unequivocally dismissed the constitutional challenge brought by former Defence Force soldier Jenna Jackson, affirming the legality of her 2014 discharge under the grounds of ‘completion of engagement.’ The court determined that military authorities acted within their statutory powers under the Defence Act, delivering a judgment that reinforces the discretionary nature of military re-engagement protocols.

The case centered on Jackson’s assertion that her termination was premature, irrational, and violated constitutional protections under Section 4(b) regarding protection of the law. Represented by attorney Ronald Simon, she sought reinstatement, compensation for lost earnings, and damages claiming unfair treatment and denial of natural justice.

Justice Charles’s comprehensive analysis revealed Jackson’s extensive medical history—including polycystic ovaries, back injuries, and postpartum complications—that resulted in prolonged sick leave and permanent restrictions preventing her from performing essential military duties. The court documented how these limitations affected her capacity for physical training, prolonged standing, and night operations.

In her rationale, Justice Charles emphasized that military organizations retain ultimate authority in managing operational effectiveness and fitness standards. ‘Re-engagement is discretionary, not automatic,’ the judgment stated, noting that Jackson had ‘no legitimate expectation’ of continued service beyond her initial term.

While acknowledging the Defence Force’s failure to provide a discharge certificate initially, the court found sufficient alternative remedies existed through the Defence Council petition process and judicial review mechanisms. The ruling establishes important precedent regarding the balance between military discretion and constitutional rights, with Justice Charles explicitly stating courts should not substitute their judgment for military operational decisions.

Although the option of medical discharge existed, the court found the ‘completion of engagement’ rationale legally sound. In a concluding decision on costs, Justice Charles ordered each party to bear their own legal expenses.

In a significant judicial ruling, High Court Justice Devindra Rampersad has mandated the Trinidad and Tobago state to compensate a sporting apparel wholesaler with over $223,000 in damages, interest, and legal costs for unlawful detention and malicious prosecution during a 2018 traffic stop.

The claimant, whose identity remains protected due to security concerns regarding the country’s crime situation, was subjected to false imprisonment and malicious prosecution by officers of the Trinidad and Tobago Police Service during a highway traffic exercise on June 23, 2018. Represented by attorney Joel Roper, the businessman successfully demonstrated that police officers violated his rights during what began as a routine traffic stop.

Justice Rampersad’s judgment detailed specific compensation awards: $50,000 for false imprisonment (including aggravated damages), $70,000 for malicious prosecution, and $25,000 as special damages. The court additionally granted interest on these awards while declining to award exemplary damages, noting that additional punitive measures were unwarranted. The state was further ordered to cover the claimant’s legal costs amounting to $34,410.41.

Court documents reveal the claimant was initially stopped while traveling to conduct business deliveries and photograph a wedding. After receiving tickets for speeding and tinted windows, he was stopped again minutes later, forcibly removed from his vehicle, handcuffed, searched, and transported to Cumuto Police Station. He endured approximately eight hours of detention without being informed of arrest reasons or afforded his constitutional rights, including access to legal counsel or telephone communication. The subsequently filed charges of using insulting language were dismissed by a magistrate, reinforcing the foundation for the malicious prosecution claim.

The Trinidad and Tobago Blind Welfare Association (TTBWA) has raised significant concerns regarding the exclusion of visually impaired citizens from the Housing Development Corporation’s (HDC) 2025 housing allocation program. Despite the distribution of over 120 housing units this year, not a single blind or visually impaired individual benefited from the national initiative.

In a December 25 media release, the advocacy organization emphasized that housing represents far more than mere shelter—it constitutes a fundamental component of independence, dignity, safety, and social inclusion. The association highlighted the particular vulnerability of blind and visually impaired individuals, who frequently encounter persistent barriers to employment, income stability, and accessible living environments.

The TTBWA articulated that persons with disabilities possess equal rights as citizens and legitimate expectations to benefit from public housing programs, especially when vulnerability and extended waiting periods are recognized as qualifying criteria for housing assistance.

The organization has called for deliberate inclusion measures in future housing distributions, improved tracking mechanisms for disabled applicants, and enhanced collaboration with disability representative organizations to develop truly inclusive housing policies. They emphasized that national progress should be measured not merely by the quantity of homes delivered, but by the inclusivity of that progress.

The TTBWA has expressed its readiness to constructively engage with policy-makers and housing authorities to ensure more equitable outcomes in future allocation cycles, advocating for systemic changes that recognize housing as a fundamental right for all citizens regardless of physical ability.

Residents of Piparo faced a disruptive Christmas as seismic activity from the local mud volcano intensified, prompting an urgent visit from Works and Infrastructure Minister Jearlean John on December 25th. The minister emphasized that holidays become insignificant during crises as she assessed the damage firsthand.

The volcanic activity, which commenced on December 24th, has generated substantial infrastructure damage, including major fissures in roadways that have rendered them unusable. At least five households have been directly impacted by the eruption, which ejected heated mud and smoke into the atmosphere.

Fedell Solomon, a resident residing in close proximity to the eruption site, described the ongoing geological disturbances. While the volcanic noises have diminished, new fissures continue to emerge around his two-story property where he lives with his wife, three children, and elderly parents. Solomon reported complete water supply disruption due to damaged pipelines caused by ground movement.

Minister John committed to immediate infrastructure repairs, promising restored road access by the following Wednesday and coordination with relevant authorities to address the water crisis. The Rural Development and Local Government Ministry had previously issued warnings about restricted access to Piparo Road and advised alternative routes with heightened safety precautions.

This event echoes previous volcanic activity in October 2019 and a significant 1997 eruption that necessitated community evacuations. Solomon revealed that his family had been offered alternative housing during the 2019 incident but declined due to financial constraints, noting their home was constructed 38 years prior without any visible volcanic indicators.

The close-knit community has mobilized support efforts while residents and officials maintain vigilant monitoring of the evolving geological situation.