The Threatener

I’m going to start off this letter in an unexpected way… do you remember those way-back-when TV series and movies with titles such as: The Equalizer, Eraser, Viper, etc.?

Well, now we have a character called the Threatener. No lie.

His modus operandi (MO in crime law parlance) is to threaten those who are critical of him. You ask him uncomfortable questions, or say something seemingly critical of him, his first words to you are words to the effect (wtte) that ‘you seem to have inside knowledge – alternatively, in-depth knowledge – of the issue, you will be contacted for questioning’.

You are then forced to undergo several hours of questioning, which has nothing to do with the original issue, or the matter at hand, but… you have dared criticise the next best thing to God. How dare you?!

The Threatener gives truth to the words of D Bonhoeffer – killed by the Nazis for expressing his thoughts too freely:

“… the stupid person, in contrast to the malicious one, is utterly self-satisfied and, being easily irritated, becomes dangerous by going on the attack. For that reason, greater caution is called for when dealing with a stupid person than with a malicious one.

“Never again will we try to persuade the stupid person with reasons, for it is senseless and dangerous.”

Tying the two threads together, we see that not only is the Threatener highly dangerous, he certainly lacks maturity of thought to be able to handle critique and criticism. I imagine I can write and publish this only, as one reader pointed out, I am ‘safely ensconced’ 5000 miles away.

I will digress to another point. True learning comes from maturity. One must have maturity to be reflective, understand what that reflection is about and change one’s behaviour to demonstrate that learning has taken place (Schön, Bawden et al). Clearly, the Threatener hasn’t developed sufficient maturity to face uncomfortable truths about himself.

But I think we have enough for a Netflix series...  Go figure.

 

TTPS rising

I am pleased that the Trinidad and Tobago Police Service (TTPS) is pleased with their ‘100%’ rise in detection rate for murders. According to Deputy Commissioner for Intelligence and Investigations McDonald Jacob:

"In the first four and a half months for 2020, we had solved 20 murders but from middle of May to date we have solved 21 murders, showing a 100 per cent improvement in our detection rate.” [Newsday, TV6 21/07/2020]

The other side of that ‘glossy’ statistic is not so rosy however.

For years the murder detection/solve rate has been less than 10%. No lie. I have been monitoring this since 2007, right here on this blog. Typically, the ‘solve rate’ hovers between 4% to 6%.

This year, 2020, TTPS has risen to heights hitherto unseen, by reaching a whopping 20% solve rate. Of course, that included the domestic cases where the perpetrators are usually known/caught at the scene/or surrender.

Looking at the bigger picture, there are some 252 murders to date, meaning the police only solved 16%. Now, remember that this is by police standards… Which is not very high apparently, since the conviction rate – which comes after the arrest and prosecution – is a mere 1% of the ‘solve rate’ quoted by TTPS. Has that sunk in yet? In other words, the police standard of evidence and detection is so low that a court finds it reliable only 1% of the time!

In the Latin Americas and Caribbean, Trinidad and Tobago ranks fourth in number of homicides per 100,000 citizens – 37.4. We are only surpassed by Venezuela, Jamaica and Honduras. [https://www.statista.com/statistics/947781/homicide-rates-latin-america-caribbean-country/]

I am pleased that TTPS is pleased. I am NOT pleased they are so easily pleased.

That Hackshaw file

If the Express’ reports are correct, that there “were over 180 deposits amounting to $1.8 million spread over 18 RBC Royal Bank accounts, with more funds in an account at Scotiabank and the Unit Trust Corporation”, then DPP Gaspard is absolutely correct in requesting the file for review. [Express 29/06/2020]

Think about it logically – simple mathematics shows that the depositor (and I am not saying it is Hackshaw) deliberately kept deposits under $10,000. Why? Deposits of over $10,000 attract attention as to the source of the funds. Clearly, the depositor (and I am not saying it is Hackshaw) wanted to avoid undue attention, which indicates that the depositor (and I am not saying it is Hackshaw) ‘knew’ there might be questions to be answered. Pretty unusual when you consider that some of the money were given in cheques in sums way above $10,000.

I am pretty sure that the ordinary man on the street would have a very difficult time converting/depositing a cheque of over $10,000 in partial increments of under $10,000. Did Hackshaw’s depositor (and I am not saying it is Hackshaw) get special benefits from the bank by virtue of Hackshaw being a high-ranking police officer?

A further discrepancy comes from Police Commissioner Gary Griffith, who, with his usual blustering style, seeks to obfuscate the issue further. On June 8 he claimed that Hackshaw’s file would be sent to the DPP, then some days later claimed that the file would not be sent until all investigations are completed – the further investigation coming not from the police service, but from an independent organisation, the PCA. One can only wonder at Gary’s agenda. There seems to be an institutionalised “protection” racket going on, a police brotherhood intent on protecting their own.

Another question that comes to my mind is why is Hackshaw’s depositor (and I am not saying it is Hackshaw) depositing money into Hackshaw’s personal accounts, money contributed by private businesses that “were donations given to him by businesses to assist with police functions”. Surely such money should have been given to the coordinators and planners of those police functions?

The Hackshaw situation raises more questions than answers, and in the interest of transparency needs to be fully aired – in public – to the satisfaction of all that there is no jiggery-pokery going on. And if Hackshaw is found to be misbehaving in public office, then I hope that the full brunt of the law falls on him, retirement or not.

Incursions into impropriety have begun

I see that the first ‘incursions into impropriety’ have begun. Those small incursions that chip away at the rights of the individuals, with the approval of members of society who will never think that those incursions will turn against them later on. It is the beginning into the slide on a slippery slope, where people give up rights to authority to ‘feel safe’ but those rights are never ‘returned’. Nazi Germany, Zimbabwe, apartheid South Africa are some places that comes to mind.

The police ‘raid’ on the office of the Express newspaper is the perfect example of rights being trampled upon by authority figures. Freedom of expression (section 4(i)), and freedom of the press (section 4(k)) are both guaranteed rights under our Constitution. Now that the police can no longer bring charges under the Sedition Act, they are going for the vague charge of “Tipping Off” found in section 51 of the Proceeds of Crime Act 2000.

A quick review of the Act showed that the charge of “Tipping off” is designed to prevent prejudice at trial for a person charged under the Act. Not to seize evidence which might prove detrimental to the person under investigation, for the purpose of withholding that evidence. No one has been charged in this matter. There is a possible defence under section 49 – a person, acting in a professional capacity and reporting through the relevant supervisory personnel at their workplace, is exempted from this charge.

A point to note: – there is no similar charge or section in the U.K.’s Proceeds of Crime Act 2002. Instead, it prohibits authorities from breaching fundamental human rights even in the course of their investigations.

Coming back to the actual search and seizure of material at The Express’ office, there will of course be judicial review of the actions of the police, as ordered by the High Court. The court will decide on the balance between rights of the police under their investigative powers, and the rights of the press with respect to its freedom of expression and public interest in what was published.

The fact that the search was conducted under the authority of the very police officer suspected of and under investigation for financial impropriety is an important factor. Under what conditions and what evidence was presented for such a search warrant to be signed off and who was the judicial officer who gave authority to the warrant? These are questions that have to be answered. Search warrants cannot be granted – or rather, should not be granted – willy-nilly. There must be just cause, and evidence presented, for fundamental rights to be breached. The right to privacy is one such fundamental right.

Of course, we know that some judicial officers (magistrates and judges) merely rubber stamp the requests by police, without conducting due diligence questioning. It is these scenarios where the slippery slope comes into view. Eternal vigilance is demanded from those who live in this society.

Systems Thinking and Policing

Dear Gary Griffith,

Rather than ‘fight tooth and nail’ with your critics, who are obviously aware that you are failing in your responsibilities as Commissioner of Police (CoP) and as the top ‘crimefighter’, won’t it be better for you to ‘man up’ and recognise the nature of the beast you face? There is no need for you to reinvent the wheel – most of the work has been done for you already.

Police work is what is known as a ‘wicked problem’. Rittel& Webber (1973) identified the following 10 characteristics of a wicked problem:

1. No definitive formulation.
2. No stopping rules.
3. Solutions are not true or false, but better or worse.
4. No immediate and no ultimate test of a solution.
5. Solution is a “one-shot operation’; no opportunity to learn by trial and error, every attempt counts significantly.
6. Do not have a fixed number (or describable) of potential solutions, no set of permissible operations to employ.
7. Every wicked problem is essentially unique.
8. Every wicked problem can be a symptom of another problem (introducing complexity).
9. Wicked problems can be explained in numerous ways. Choice of explanation determines the nature of the problem’s solution (More on this later).
10. No right to be wrong (planners are liable for consequences of actions).

This brings me to the current problem-solving culture within the police service:

1.   there is a historical predominance of traditional hard systems thinking (HST) for problem solving.

2.   A culture of evidence-based decisions which place emphasis on numerical data and statistical validity such as randomised controlled trials (RCT).

3.   Often impossible to define problems, their causes and effects in absolute terms required.

4.   Police managers are increasingly required to respond to high variety, complex problem contexts.

5.   Low variety problem-solving approaches such as HST may not be sufficient in new environments.

6.   There needs to be greater understanding of systems’ contexts.

7.    Whole-systems approaches seek to balance HST, with appropriate emphasis on ‘softer’ problem structuring method e.g. SSM and VSM.

(Adapted from Newsome and Wiggett (2014)).

Crime fighting requires ‘systems thinking’: the ability to view the interconnectedness of the entire “criminal system” inclusive of the police force, in a holistic manner, and looking to see where applying leverage can have the most effect upon the entire system. It means taking into consideration different perspectives, from different stakeholders, applying methodology instead of methods and recognising the limitations imposed by the system itself and that sometimes there are no solutions.

Newsome and Wiggett (2014) identified 10 characteristics of systems thinking force:

1.   has clarity of purpose, derived from the service users’ perspectives (i.e. the public)

2.   adopts a whole systems approach, where interdependencies are understood.

3.   Has staff that understand the purpose, and their service responses are flexible to help achieve that purpose.

4.   understand that the greatest influences on performance and service are determined by the system.

5.   Understand the implications of setting boundaries within a system, and seeks to engage the whole system and make an improvement.

6.   Uses a variety of measurement and information to understand system performance, so as to identify learning and secure improvement.

7.   Understand the variety of its demand and how services can be optimised to satisfy this.

8.   Trust staff to apply informed professional judgement in support of achieving purpose.

9.   Has a culture of learning and continuous improvement where staff are empowered and equipped to understand and improve performance.

10.Respects and encourages the staff’s sense of vocation, and recognises the value of this in improving their well-being, commitment and whole system performance.

Traditional policing methods will have a high probability of failure in a modern society. That is not to say that they don’t have their place. But the police force must evolve, from the perceived “brute squad” to a highly effective thinking and performing unit. It will take a lot to make these changes – systems have a way of resisting change. You may want to investigate Soft Systems Methodology (SSM) and Viable Systems Model (VSM), a combination of which has been identified by Kinloch et al (2008) as a more effective tool.

If you want to succeed, rather than further alienating your detractors, identify the core problem you face, which is that your current police force is not effective in its present form and drastic changes are needed. Begin there.

Letter to CoP Gary Griffith

Dear Mr Griffith,

Before you respond, I ask you to consider some words first said at the end of World War II:

“Stupidity is a more dangerous enemy of the good than malice.

One may protest against evil; it can be exposed and, if need be, prevented by use of force.

Evil always carries within itself the germ of its own subversion in that it leaves behind in human beings at least a sense of unease.

Against stupidity we are defenceless.

• Neither protests nor the use of force accomplishes anything here;
• reasons fall on deaf ears;
• facts that contradict one’s prejudgment simply need not be believed
• – in such moments the stupid person even becomes critical –
• and when facts are irrefutable, they are just pushed aside as inconsequential, as incidental.

In all this the stupid person, in contrast to the malicious one, is utterly self-satisfied and, being easily irritated, becomes dangerous by going on the attack.

For that reason, greater caution is called for when dealing with a stupid person than with a malicious one.

Never again will we try to persuade the stupid person with reasons, for it is senseless and dangerous.” [Dietrich Bonhoeffer]

Consider the murder rate in Trinidad and Tobago – which has already reached 535 as of today 31 December 2019, with one day left to go – I put the following questions to you, as the person responsible for the keeping of the peace (control, prevention , and detection of crime) in Trinidad and Tobago.

1.   What percentage of all homicides in the last 5 years have been successfully prosecuted?

2.   Does the police service have sufficient manpower and resources to effectively investigate all cases on record and those to come?

3.   In its current configuration to date, is the police service effective in controlling or deterring serious crime? [A straight yes or no would do].

4.   If ‘yes’ to the above, what percentage reduction in the homicide rate can the public expect to see – per annum – averaged over the next 5 years? [Using the average annual rate over the preceding 5 years].

5.   Is the country being held to ransom by criminals?

6.   Can we expect the detection rate for crime, especially murders, to rise above 6% (as cited by the USA)?

Now, I have asked these questions before, in February 2018. As expected, no answers were supplied. Not that I expected any differently. I also noted – with utter dread, I might add – that you used words to the effect that we (the public) should be grateful that the murder total is not higher [Daily Express, 28 December 2019).

Over to you, Mr Griffith. Ordinary people will await your sensible answers to my questions. I ask you to lead your flock away from stupidity. You are invited to prove Bonhoeffer wrong.

Systems Thinking and the Police

Dear Gary Griffith,

Rather than ‘fight tooth and nail’ with your critics, who are obviously aware that you are failing in your responsibilities as Commissioner of Police (CoP) and as the top ‘crimefighter’, won’t it be better for you to ‘man up’ and recognise the nature of the beast you face? There is no need for you to reinvent the wheel – most of the work has been done for you already.

Police work is what is known as a ‘wicked problem’. Rittel & Webber (1973) identified the following 10 characteristics of a wicked problem:

1. No definitive formulation.
2. No stopping rules.
3. Solutions are not true or false, but better or worse.
4. No immediate and no ultimate test of a solution.
5. Solution is a “one-shot operation’; no opportunity to learn by trial and error, every attempt counts significantly.
6. Do not have a fixed number (or describable) of potential solutions, no set of permissible operations to employ.
7. Every wicked problem is essentially unique.
8. Every wicked problem can be a symptom of another problem (introducing complexity).
9. Wicked problems can be explained in numerous ways. Choice of explanation determines the nature of the problem’s solution (More on this later).
10. No right to be wrong (planners are liable for consequences of actions).

This brings me to the current problem-solving culture within the police service:

1. there is a historical predominance of traditional hard systems thinking (HST) for problem solving.
2. A culture of evidence-based decisions which place emphasis on numerical data and statistical validity such as randomised controlled trials (RCT).
3. Often impossible to define problems, their causes and effects in absolute terms required.
4. Police managers are increasingly required to respond to high variety, complex problem contexts.
5. Low variety problem-solving approaches such as HST may not be sufficient in new environments.
6. There needs to be greater understanding of systems’ contexts.
7. Whole-systems approaches seek to balance HST, with appropriate emphasis on ‘softer’ problem structuring method e.g. SSM and VSM.

(Adapted from Newsome and Wiggett (2014)).

Crime fighting requires ‘systems thinking’: the ability to view the interconnectedness of the entire “criminal system” inclusive of the police force, in a holistic manner, and looking to see where applying leverage can have the most effect upon the entire system. It means taking into consideration different perspectives, from different stakeholders, applying methodology instead of methods and recognising the limitations imposed by the system itself and that sometimes there are no solutions.

Newsome and Wiggett (2014) identified 10 characteristics of systems thinking force:

1. has clarity of purpose, derived from the service users’ perspectives (i.e. the public)
2. adopts a whole systems approach, where interdependencies are understood.
3. Has staff that understand the purpose, and their service responses are flexible to help achieve that purpose.
4. understand that the greatest influences on performance and service are determined by the system.
5. Understand the implications of setting boundaries within a system, and seeks to engage the whole system and make an improvement.
6. Uses a variety of measurement and information to understand system performance, so as to identify learning and secure improvement.
7. Understand the variety of its demand and how services can be optimised to satisfy this.
8. Trust staff to apply informed professional judgement in support of achieving purpose.
9. Has a culture of learning and continuous improvement where staff are empowered and equipped to understand and improve performance.
10. Respects and encourages the staff’s sense of vocation, and recognises the value of this in improving their well-being, commitment and whole system performance.

Traditional policing methods will have a high probability of failure in a modern society. That is not to say that they don’t have their place. But the police force must evolve, from the perceived “brute squad” to a highly effective thinking and performing unit. It will take a lot to make these changes – systems have a way of resisting change. You may want to investigate Soft Systems Methodology (SSM) and Viable Systems Model (VSM), a combination of which has been identified by Kinloch et al (2008) as a more effective tool.

If you want to succeed, rather than further alienating your detractors, identify the core problem you face, which is that your current police force is not effective in its present form and drastic changes are needed. Begin there.

Lions led by a donkey

After reading through the article “Gary slams politicians, lawyers, as cop killed in cold blood”, published an hour ago on the Daily Express’ website, I had to wonder whether the Commissioner of Police (CoP) Gary Griffith is uneducated, ignorant of the law, merely stupid or a combination of all three.

Gary, your statements are absurd bordering on the stupid, if not already passing that gate. If I had to break down the utter tripe you spewed, it might be a doctoral thesis.

First, “the rights of cold-blooded criminals to be free when held with a firearm, have precedence over the rights of law-abiding citizens to survive in this country” is utter nonsense.

Starting with ‘cold-blooded criminals’ you mislead yourself. Any individual is presumed to be innocent until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt after a trial. So, merely arresting a person, whether caught with arms or not, doesn’t make that person automatically guilty. The burden lies with you, your officers and the Director of Public Prosecution (DPP) to make a sound case for proving that guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Mouthing off to the public surely isn’t the way, or the evidence needed.

Continuing, the rights of alleged criminals are the same as those of the law-abiding citizens, so you again mislead yourself, your TTPS officers (who lack legal training) and the public when you spout such drivel. The Constitution guarantees that rights are for everyone. Not just those whom you think deserves them. Your opinion matters not in the slightest, really.

“It is difficult for the police to be doing their job of arresting these individuals with firearms only for them to be given a get out of jail free card, to go back onto the streets.”

Rights, Gary, rights. It is up to Parliament to abrogate those rights but even Parliament can be constrained if it breaches the Constitution. Rights must be balanced.

“Why must we wait for these cold-blooded killers to commit their act, before we understand that they should not be entitled to their freedom?”

Simple, Gary. It is still not part of the law to convict people on merely suspicion, or intention. Murder has two parts, an intent to kill or do serious harm, and the act of doing so. Hence, you can only convict after, and you need proof Gary. Real, solid evidence that can be tested and accepted in a court. Not the Mickey Mouse braggadocio of a CoP with an elevated opinion of his capabilities and unaware of his limitations.

“…we must start setting the precedence of looking over the rights of law-abiding citizens, over the rights of criminals”. Go back to paragraph 5, Gary. The rights of alleged criminals are the same as those of the law-abiding citizens, so you continue to mislead yourself.

Close mouth and engage brain, Gary. You have legal advisers, and many police officers who studied law. Consult them. They must be hanging their head in shame right now. Remember the Scotland Yard detective who mentioned, “Lions led by donkeys”? Surely, your entire TTPS members must be realising what that is like.

Crime and happiness

The entire country appears shocked at the murder of Raymond Choo Kong. I don’t know why… crime doesn’t have a particular stratum of society that it sticks to. I empathise with his family and friends but in the past, we have had relatives of the poor, the rich, the police, lawyers, CEOs and even of Members of Parliament being struck down unexpectedly. Crime is no respecter of persons.

People may not like me saying this, and I am NOT saying I want this to happen, but I have often felt that it is only when crime hits home to those in positions of power and positions to implement inflexibly enforced changes, then and only then we will see the will to affect those changes.

Much is being made of the fact that Mr Choo Kong was gay. Whether that is a factor in his murder remains to be seen, but one cannot deny that whole segments of society such as the LGBT, the blind, the disabled etc, remain discriminated against and disgruntlement is rising while politicians play with themselves.

But don’t worry. Just Google “happiness set point” and you will find out that no matter what happens, and who it happens to, the level of happiness will rise back, partying and feting will go on (Diener et al., 1985, 1998, 2001).

Once Carnival doesn’t stop or get cancelled…

More questions than answers

There are several matters that are on my mind following recent reports in the local newspapers.

1. After seeing a report about a “fake police station” and the ‘prisoners’ therein, my thoughts went to the healthy (or unhealthy, depending on your point of view) relationship between the police and Venezuelan/Columbian females, going back decades. One can only guess why raids on brothels require police to wear masks… afraid of being identified as clients by the arrestees? I also noticed that the numerous past reports indicate that it is mainly police officers who have these women as ‘guests’ in their homes.
2. The ‘Wealth Bill’ is another matter that gives me unease. Despite ‘reassurances’ by the Attorney General, there has never been a law enacted that has never been abused when the potential to do so is there. In other words, the potential for abuse is a certainty of abuse. Every time. Often in creative ways.
3. The Prime Minister, and indirectly the President, are sitting on their hands with respect to the most important Constitutional issue (arguably) in the entire history of the country since Independence from England. I refer to the matter of the Chief Justice (CJ) who has allegations against him amounting to serious misconduct in office if they are true. There is a duty, both legally and morally, for the Prime Minister to trigger an investigation via section 137 of the Constitution, by referring the matter to the President for an independent tribunal to carry out a proper investigation.

Instead, we have now become the only country in the entire history of the Commonwealth, to be in this position. But oh, how swift was the PNM in making the same type of recommendation against Sat Sharma, a former ‘Indian’ CJ, when there were allegations against him! This surely makes race a factor in the apathy of the Prime Minister.

But let’s put race aside. Can it be that the Prime Minister is afraid of being caught in a sting regarding the issue of cavorting with the CJ? The present CJ acknowledges that he approached the PM to influence the Trinidad & Tobago Housing Development Corporation (HDC), an Agency of the Ministry of Housing & Urban Development, and which the Prime Minster was formerly in charge of under the Manning stewardship. What else would an investigation reveal? That seems to be the million-dollar question.

1. The pace of murders occurring is accelerating. The ability of the police to detect and solve these is decelerating. And apparently, never the twain shall meet…

Can we get answers from those in charge please?

What did Gary do wrong?

I am not sure what are the objections to Gary Griffith being appointed Commissioner of Police… as far I can see, the objections verbalised in the newspapers are merely rantings of small minds. The best reasons for appointing him are, (i) he qualified according to the procedure adopted (and agreed by both political parties) subsequent to the Gibbs and Ewatski appointments, (ii) the country needs something radically different to combat the crime tsunami. Of course, there are myriads of other reasons, but these are the 2 most important.

With respect to the TTPS union and the position of non-cooperation if Griffith is appointed, this position is the very definition of stupidity. First of all, the job of selecting a Commissioner of Police is solely in the domain of the Police Services Commission (PSC). For police officers to refuse accepting the legal and valid appointment is to trespass on the domain of the PSC. There is no ifs and buts about it.

Further, if I were Griffith, any non-cooperation would be viewed as misconduct in office and failure to obey orders would be deemed gross misconduct. Dismissal would follow soon after. If the entire First Division, banking on seniority and experience, were to object then the entire lot would be dismissed. The crime situation is bad enough that we do not need further stumbling blocks on the journey to recovery. It is imperative that everyone cooperate with each other, and if this is not happening then the obstacles must be removed. That is just common sense.

I look forward to seeing major changes, soon.

Idiocy rules

The letter to the left, to the editor of the Newsday, and printed on 12 June 2018, is quite revealing in its composition.

The writer is an idiot.

Not only does the writer ignore evidence that is readily available with a simple Google search, he makes elementary mistakes in reasoning a 5 years old child will spot.

Trinidad and Tobago has a murder solve rate of 3.65% or close. It is mainly domestic murders in which the victim and perpetrator know each other, have a history of violence between them, and is readily identifiable that are ‘solved’ by the Trinidad and Tobago Police Service (TTPS).

Don’t believe me? Go check for yourself.

So to say that “If would-be criminals know without a shadow of a doubt that they will be put to death should they murder with premeditation, most of them are less likely to kill” is not only disingenuous but downright dotish.

Simply put, the criminals know that they are ‘untouchable’ since the chance of being caught is less than 4%; a 96% chance on going free and unidentified. Conviction is 1% of that 4%.

No need to fear the death penalty if you know you can’t be caught.

The mistake the writer makes in addition to the point above, is to think that the death penalty went somewhere, by implication if not express words. That is not true. The death penalty is still the appropriate sentence for murder according to the laws of T&T.

The barriers to the death penalty of course, as I have previously stated on numerous occasions, are 1) not catching the murderers, and 2) not going through the judicial process to its finality in less than 5 years.

Sigh.. I eh able, nah. I give up.

The police–a law onto themselves?

The article on the left, taken from the Daily Express of Wednesday 30 May, 2018, is an example of where police officers are a law onto themselves. And stupid, but I’ll get to that later.

See here also: https://www.cnc3.co.tt/press-release/man-ticketed-2000-each-5-tinted-windows.

Let me deal with the second point first, highlighted in the shaded red area.

But there is no specification in the law as to what grade of tint is acceptable.  

Instead, issuing fines for vehicle tint is up to the discretion of the police officer.

Hang on… no specification in law as to what grade of tint is illegal? Either the reporter is wrong or all the police in Trinidad since Independence have been acting as judge, jury and executioner… and supported in this by the entire judiciary!

To check this, I went off to the Motor Vehicles and Road Traffic Act 1924 (no, that is not a typo). Here is what I found:

Section 23(1)(d) states “no motor vehicle the windscreen or any other window of which is fitted with class so tinted, treated or darkened as to obscure the view of the inside of the vehicle from the outside;”

Next, I turned to the Motor Vehicles and Road Traffic (Enforcement and Administration) Act 1978 CH 48:52 [http://rgd.legalaffairs.gov.tt/Laws2/Alphabetical_List/lawspdfs/48.52.pdf].

In the First Schedule, point 61 affirms this.

On the face of it, this is a subjective standard which is against the rule of law. The rule of law requires that law must be accessible, intelligible, clear and predictable (Bingham, 2010). Nothing in Section 23(1)(d) appears to be clear and predictable. Why do I say this?

Most countries have a clear standard – rated in percentage – regarding the blackness of tints.

See here: https://delightandinspire.com/2015/03/18/international-window-tinting-laws-for-cars-driving-around-the-world/

Having a clear standard, with instruments to measure this standard, is an objective test. It does not depend upon the personal view of a particular police officer at a particular time in a particular place with a particular driver and particular vehicle.

Sadly, most citizens do not have the time, legal knowledge, financial resources, or sufficient outrage to have this clear injustice settled at the superior courts, in this case the Privy Council as I fully expect the local courts to side with the dunceys.

The second point is highlighted in green in the first picture. The tickets issued do not have the offence written on them. There are two possible reasons for this:

1) Either PC Duff (see first link to CNC3 website for photo) deliberately did that so the offender would ‘get out’ of paying the fine by challenging a non-offence ticket in court, or

2) PC Duff made a duff and doesn’t know his job.

Of the two, I would not be surprised at either, but I’m voting for no. 2 as the evidence shows me time and time again that dunceys are more stupid than we give them credit for. In other words, when you think stupidity can’t get worse, it’s the dunceys who come along (for the main part) to prove it can.

By the way, how many of you noticed that Motor Vehicle Supervisor II, Dexter Drakes, didn’t/doesn’t know the law either? His quote clearly shows him rewriting the law.

Stupidity has a price

The Newsday article bothered me. A lot! How the fawk can you be on the job for 3 decades and still don’t know your job? Well, a Trini duncey will explain.

A policeman, Joseph Coraspe knocked down two men who were cycling, Darren Roome and Matthew Tambie, during the State of Emergency in Trinidad and Tobago in 2011. The injuries suffered by the victims were extensive and horrific.

Roome, who was thrown from his bike and dragged face down resulting in his face being disfigured, had to undergo several surgeries and will have to endure more. He suffered severe injuries to his face and spine along with a broken bones in his left leg. He also developed a cataract as a result of the trauma leading to significant deterioration of his eyesight.

Roome’s injuries and subsequent surgeries caused him to lose his external nasal structure causing him severe pain, discomfort and continuous ridicule for how he now looks.

Tambie suffered mild head injuries and multiple soft tissue injury, memory loss, headaches and weakness in the left arm. He was described as being irritable and abusive towards his mother as a result of the accident and was diagnosed with post-traumatic disorder and psychological issues.

What bothered me most was the attitude of the policeman (duncey) and his ‘excuses’. First, before you judge him less harshly, remember that this particular dunce has 30 years experience as a police officer. 30 years!

Coraspe, who testified that he was a police officer for close to 30 years, claimed he was unaware that driving without insurance was a criminal act.

In a report submitted to court, Coraspe admitted to driving at 40 miles per hour (64.4km) while the speed limit was 50 km/hr.

Coraspe said in his evidence that, after the collision, he saw the two men in a nearby drain and the severe facial injury to Roome then went home without waiting for medical assistance to arrive and he did not report the matter immediately.

“Essentially, he fled the scene because, according to him, he heard bystanders making comments about the accident and thought they would blame him. He gave no evidence that he tried to get names of potential witnesses despite the nature of the accident and injuries he observed. His conduct was inconsistent with a lack of responsibility for the accident.” Donaldson-Honeywell stated.

Hold on… after 30 years on the job, ‘upholding the law’ he still didn’t know it’s illegal to drive without insurance. He still didn’t know he must report an accident? He didn’t know he must not leave the scene of the accident? He thought he was Sherman McNicolls? Breach of these are criminal charges by the way. Sometimes, words fail me to describe the stupidity that is pandemic to the Trinidad and Tobago Police Service (TTPS). Stupidity has a price and in this case, the duncey has to pay US $1 million.

Domestic Violence

Domestic Violence. It’s like the air around us. It permeates everywhere and yet is not noticeable until there is some stench on it that brings awareness of its existence. Case in point, two police officers caught on video shooting at each other from point blank range… the backdrop of which is an alleged ‘love triangle’ which deteriorated into violence.

If the police going so far to try eliminating each other, can we hope that they will protect those of the public who need protection? Hardly. Last time, I wrote about a police officer telling a friend of mine that her brother, against whom she has a protection order, must breach the order three times before the police can act, or words to that effect (wtte). I thought that was an absurd position so I went investigating the Domestic Violence Act 1999 (the Act).

The Act is quite clear. Section 20 clearly states that a person who has an Order against him (I use the masculine to mean both male and female) and knows of the Order and contravenes the Order has committed an offence. No three-strikes rule there.

Section 21 directs a police officer

 “shall respond to every complaint or report alleging domestic violence whether or not the person making the complaint or the report is the victim”.

Quite clear, no funny ‘legal’ language here. And lo and behold, no three-strikes rule here either.

Section 23 makes the duty to act even plainer:

“For the avoidance of doubt, a police officer may act in accordance with the provisions of the Criminal Law Act where he has reasonable cause to believe that a person is engaging in or attempting to engage in conduct which amounts to physical violence and failure to act immediately may result in serious physical injury or death.”

Again, no three-strikes rule, only that the officer must have reasonable grounds to believe violence is a possibility. To err on the side of caution if you will…

Section 24 removes the need for applying for a warrant to arrest, expediting matters:

“Where an Order is in force and a police officer believes on reasonable grounds that a person has committed or is committing a breach of the Order he may detain and arrest that person without a warrant.”

Crikey, would you look at that? No three-strikes rule.

Schedule 1 of the Domestic Violence Act lists 49 actions, any of which – when committed by the person who is under an Order of the Court – will result in a breach of the Order. Therefore, an arrestable offence is committed. And nowhere in the First Schedule of the Domestic Violence Act, mentioning the Summary Offences Act, the Malicious Damage Act, the Offences Against the Person Act, the Children Act, the Sexual Offences Act, or the Criminal Justice Act is a three-strikes rule printed in law.