Senior Reporter
The T&T Police Service (TTPS) has sought to justify its polarising decision to charge social activist Alyssa Phillip and her mother Camille Caresquero after they participated in Labour Day celebrations in Fyzabad on Friday.
In an uncharacteristically lengthy press release issued yesterday, the TTPS announced that the mother and daughter had been slapped with three charges each and explained the rationale for their prosecution.
The release stated that Phillip had been charged with being the leader of a march and failing to call on such a march to disperse, disorderly behaviour, and resisting arrest. Casesquero was charged with being present at a march and failing to disperse, obstructing a police officer, and resisting arrest.
Their arrests and the charges came while they were already on bail, having been charged with disorderly behaviour and influencing public opinion in a manner that is prejudicial to public safety under the Emergency Powers Regulations for the ongoing State of Emergency (SoE) in relation to a demonstration in Port-of-Spain, late last month.
The demonstration was related to a police-involved shooting on January 20, which claimed the life of Joshua Samaroo and left his partner Kaia Sealy paralysed.
Sealy was eventually slapped with eight charges, including for Samaroo’s unlawful killing and shooting at the police officers and made her first court appearance last week.
Guardian Media understands that the mother and daughter remained detained at the Fyzabad Police Station, up to yesterday afternoon, when they were granted station bail by a Justice of the Peace (JP) after their lawyer, Fayola Sandy, made numerous representations on their behalf.
Explaining the alleged reasons for the duo’s arrest and subsequent prosecution on Friday, the TTPS said that while trade union organisations applied for and received the requisite permission to engage in their celebrations, a group led by Phillip did not.
It claimed that its officers checked with trade union leaders to verify whether Phliip and her group were part of their procession and based on the response, they advised them (Phillip and the group) to disperse.
“Despite this clear explanation, the group proceeded to form and participate in an unauthorised procession at the rear of the lawful march,” it said.
Referring to the legal basis for the action of the police officers, the TTPS pointed to section 116 of the Summary Offences Act, which gives senior officers the authority to call on a leader of a march to call on members to disperse and makes it an offence for the leader and followers to disregard the instruction.
“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 claimed.
It also cited a judgment in which former High Court Judge and current Appellate Judge Ricky Rahim provided judicial clarification on the distinction between public meetings and marches.
In the judgment, Justice Rahim ruled that no permit is needed for public meetings, unlike marches.
However, Justice Rahim noted that the Police Commissioner may be permitted to prohibit such meetings in certain circumstances.
“This judgment confirms that any group wishing to participate in a public march must have a permit, and that attaching an unauthorised possession to a lawful one is a breach of the Act,” the TTPS said.
“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,” it added.
The TTPS went as far as to justify the decision of its officers to intervene, as it claimed that they had a responsibility to maintain public order and ensure lawful events are not hijacked or disrupted.
“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 said.
The release included a statement from Police Commissioner Allister Guevarro, who said that while the TTPS respects the rights of all citizens to assemble and express their views, such activity must be within the confines of the legal framework.
“Officers acted with restraint, clarity, and professionalism. 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,” Guevarro said.
Attorney: Police being petty
Contacted yesterday, Sandy, who is representing the duo alongside Larry Williams, raised several issues with their arrest, the charges and a purported move by the police to keep them in custody even after they were charged.
Sandy claimed that they were not informed of the reasons for their arrest or cautioned over their legal rights and privileges before being charged hours later.
She stated that she repeatedly questioned the basis for their arrest through official correspondence and was given varying explanations before the charges were eventually laid.
Dealing with the charges laid on her clients, Sandy expressed the view that the TTPS misconstrued the legislation to prosecute them.
“They are doing it as a means of punishing them without actually having to punish them,” Sandy said, as she noted that she plans to challenge the police’s actions in the criminal case as well as through parallel civil litigation.
Sandy also took issue with the fact that the TTPS did not facilitate station bail by a Justice of the Peace (JP) pending their court appearance until yesterday afternoon.
She claimed that she was told that the procedure, utilised when they were charged over the Port-of-Spain demonstration, could not be immediately facilitated because there was not a senior police officer at the station to approve such.
“I think they are just trying to frustrate and be petty to be quite honest,” she said.
She suggested that Phillip and her mother’s continued detention could not be reasonably justified after the charges were laid, as there was no need for further investigations because the circumstances leading to her clients’ arrests were captured on camera.
Griffith: Abuse of authority
Phillip and her mother’s arrest was criticised by several labour leaders at the celebrations including National Trade Union Centre (NATUC) and Seamen and Waterfront Workers Trade Union (SWWTU) president Michael Annisette and Movement for Social Justice (MSJ) leader David Abdulah.
Former police commissioner and national security minister Gary Griffith also weighed in on the issue in a lengthy press release issued yesterday, in which he criticised the TTPS and its media release.
Stating that the case demonstrated that when those in authority understand the letter of the law but not its spirit.
“There is a difference between enforcing the law and abusing legal technicalities. There is a difference between maintaining public order and using colonial-era public order laws to intimidate citizens,” Griffith said.
Dealing specifically with Phillip and her mother’s arrests, Griffith described treating their actions as an unlawful march as “weak, selective and dangerous”.
He also questioned if other attendees at the event, including members of the Opposition, had received permission for their participation.
“The incident should never have reached the point of arrest. It could have been handled with maturity, dialogue and discretion,” Griffith said, as he called on the TTPS to review its actions.
“If not, then the public will see this for exactly what it appears to be: profiling, selective enforcement, and an abuse of authority,” he added.
