SOCIAL activist Alyssa Phillip and her mother, Camille Caresquero, have each been charged with three offences following their arrest during the Labour Day march in Fyzabad on Friday.
Phillip was charged with leading a march and failing to call on participants to disperse, disorderly behaviour and resisting arrest.
Caresquero was charged with being present at a march and failing to disperse, obstructing a police officer and resisting arrest.
Phillip and Caresquero have been at the forefront of public demonstrations and vigils calling for justice and transparency, following the decision to charge Kaia Sealy with manslaughter and firearms-related offences in connection with the death of her husband, Joshua Samaroo, during a police-involved incident on January 20 in St Augustine.
It is the second time Phillip and her mother have been arrested in connection with such protests.
They are currently on bail on separate charges arising from a protest near the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP), Port of Spain, last month.
Earlier this month, they appeared before Magistrate Indira Ramnarine Misir-Gosine and pleaded not guilty to charges stemming from that demonstration along Richmond Street.
In a release titled “TTPS Reaffirms the Rule of Law During Labour Day Procession”, the Police Service yesterday addressed public commentary surrounding the latest arrests.
Commissioner of Police Allister Guevarro said the TTPS respected citizens’ rights to assemble and express their views but stressed that those rights must be exercised within the law.
He said officers acted professionally and with clarity.
“It is regrettable that enforcement became necessary, but the sanctity of the Labour Day procession should never be compromised by persons seeking to attach unrelated agendas to a permitted national event,” said Guevarro.
According to the TTPS, officers acted in keeping with their responsibility to maintain public order, ensure public safety, and protect the integrity of the annual Labour Day procession under the Summary Offences Act.
The Police Service said the trade union movement had applied for and received the necessary permission to stage its annual Labour Day procession, in accordance with Sections 112, 113 and 114 of the act.
Under the legislation, no person may organise, lead or participate in a public march without a permit issued by the Commissioner of Police, while applications must be made in writing within the prescribed time-frame.
• Section 112—No person may organise, lead or take part in any public march unless a permit has been issued by the Commissioner of Police.
• Section 113—Applications must be made in writing, within the statutory time-frame.
• Section 114—The Commissioner may grant or refuse a permit based on public safety and public order considerations.
“The trade union movement complied fully with these legal requirements. Their procession was therefore lawful, authorised, and protected under the permit issued,” stated the TTPS.
‘Unauthorised procession’
The TTPS said Phillip and a small group of supporters, who were not members of the trade union movement, attempted to join the procession.
Officers subsequently confirmed with organisers that the group was not part of the authorised event.
According to the TTPS, officers informed the group’s leader that they were not covered under the trade union’s permit and that their participation would constitute a separate public march requiring its own authorisation.
Police also advised that their actions could jeopardise the lawful holding of the Labour Day procession.
“Despite this clear explanation, the group proceeded to form and participate in an unauthorised procession at the rear of the lawful march,” the TTPS said.
The Police Service cited Section 116 of the Summary Offences Act, which empowers a police officer of the rank of sergeant or above to direct the leader of an unlawful march to call for its dispersal.
The act also makes it an offence for a leader to refuse such a direction or for participants to fail to disperse when lawfully instructed.
“The leader of the activist group refused to call on the unlawful procession to disperse. Officers therefore acted immediately and lawfully to prevent escalation and protect the integrity of the authorised event,” the TTPS stated.
It also referenced the recent High Court ruling in Walker v Attorney General (CV2023-00302), delivered by Justice Ricky Rahim, which clarified the distinction between public meetings and public marches.
The TTPS further noted that there is a “clear and unambiguous prohibition” against public marches unless permission is granted, and permission must be sought and granted before a march can lawfully take place.
“This judgment confirms that any group wishing to participate in a public march must have a permit, and that attaching an unauthorised procession to a lawful one is a breach of the act.
“The activist group in question did not give notice of a meeting, nor did they apply for or receive a permit for a march. Their actions, therefore, fell squarely within the statutory definition of an unlawful public march,” added the TTPS.
It said enforcement action was necessary to maintain public order, protect participants and bystanders, safeguard authorised events and uphold the conditions attached to permits issued under the law.
“Allowing an unpermitted procession to merge with a lawful one would have undermined the event, created security risks, and violated the legal framework governing public marches,” it stated.
The Police Service said it remains committed to upholding constitutional rights, enforcing the law without fear or favour, ensuring national events proceed safely and engaging the public respectfully and transparently.
It advised that groups wishing to hold public marches should follow the established permit process to avoid similar incidents.
