TriniTuner.com | Latest Event:
Moderator: 3ne2nr Mods
You can't use those metrics. These embassies have it wrong and PNM Kuñts like Habit7 and wing have rightpugboy wrote:i am guessing them embassy gonna soon reverse all them warnings they send out each month about bad crime here
Barry release you from the "safe" room?zoom rader wrote:You can't use those metrics. These embassies have it wrong and PNM Kuñts like Habit7 and wing have rightpugboy wrote:i am guessing them embassy gonna soon reverse all them warnings they send out each month about bad crime here
Rovin wrote:160 = 5ft 3" , well he cud comfort himself with d 400k minus legal fees
so if they review d height requirement jes now we see a bunch of short male police
ah hope they cud handle themselves if they hadda apprehend some big tall strapped rowdy thug\s when d moment arises ... or put dem shortmen to do clerical wuk
“This is particularly troubling in a multi-racial society such as ours as it will have a disproportionate impact on persons who, due to their ethnic origin, are of medium build,” his claim contended.
Judge rejects claim of Muslim cop barred from growing beard
A Muslim police officer who mounted a legal challenge against him being prohibited from growing his beard due to his religious belief has had his claim dismissed.
https://trinidadexpress.com/news/local/judge-rejects-claim-of-muslim-cop-barred-from-growing-beard/article_75d9e0ba-c7b2-11ee-9e08-abc27315bb5d.html
Justice Betsy Ann Lambert-Peterson yesterday struck out the claim brought by PC Kristian Khan that his constitutional rights to freely practise his religion were being infringed by the Trinidad and Tobago Police Service (TTPS).
Khan claimed that Police Service Regulation 143(3)(b) of 2007 and Standing Order 6 Section 5, which required officers to be clean shaven except in cases in which they were medically exempted, were unconstitutional, illegal, null and void and of no legal effect.
The defence, on the other hand, submitted that Regulation 143(3)(b) of the 2007 regulation was still saved law. The attorneys contended that Regulation 143(3)(b) was a re-enactment of Regulation 51 of the 1965 regulations, which predated the republican Constitution.
In the end, Justice Lambert-Peterson ruled in favour of the defence, agreeing that the regulation was still saved law and could not be challenged.
The ruling was in contrast to one that was delivered by Justice Robin Mohammed on Thursday, who found that the regulations were not saved and were also unconstitutional.
alfa wrote:What about WPCs in skirt and males in tight pants and hard boots, how they supposed to run down bandits. I think everyone should be in some form of tactical uniform unless you a desk cop which shouldn't even be a thing. Study that before tall and short
alfa wrote:What about WPCs in skirt and males in tight pants and hard boots, how they supposed to run down bandits. I think everyone should be in some form of tactical uniform unless you a desk cop which shouldn't even be a thing. Study that before tall and short
Police can’t release mugshots to public
THE Trinidad and Tobago Police Service (TTPS) does not have the lawful authority to release mugshots of individuals who are charged with criminal offences to the public, the High Court has ruled.
https://trinidadexpress.com/news/local/police-can-t-release-mugshots-to-public/article_9c533862-cba0-11ee-998b-77ca2a423264.html
Mugshot images are captured for a specific purpose under section 50 of the Police Service Act, and it does not include public dissemination, Justice Frank Seepersad ruled yesterday.
The judge said it was clearly stated under the section that such images were to only be used in the course of the prosecution of criminal offences, inclusive of the preparation of internal police files to advance any instituted prosecution.
Justice Seepersad made the findings as he delivered judgment in a lawsuit filed by Cpl Narindra Beharry against the Office of the Attorney General.
The judge did not award any damages to the officer. Instead, he directed that both parties bear their own legal costs.
The officer claimed the dissemination of his personal information, including his mugshot by the TTPS in January 2023, after he was charged with assault occasioning actual body harm, infringed his rights to privacy and/or his right to equality of treatment by a public authority.
maj. tom wrote:Police can’t release mugshots to public
THE Trinidad and Tobago Police Service (TTPS) does not have the lawful authority to release mugshots of individuals who are charged with criminal offences to the public, the High Court has ruled.
https://trinidadexpress.com/news/local/police-can-t-release-mugshots-to-public/article_9c533862-cba0-11ee-998b-77ca2a423264.html
Mugshot images are captured for a specific purpose under section 50 of the Police Service Act, and it does not include public dissemination, Justice Frank Seepersad ruled yesterday.
The judge said it was clearly stated under the section that such images were to only be used in the course of the prosecution of criminal offences, inclusive of the preparation of internal police files to advance any instituted prosecution.
Justice Seepersad made the findings as he delivered judgment in a lawsuit filed by Cpl Narindra Beharry against the Office of the Attorney General.
The judge did not award any damages to the officer. Instead, he directed that both parties bear their own legal costs.
The officer claimed the dissemination of his personal information, including his mugshot by the TTPS in January 2023, after he was charged with assault occasioning actual body harm, infringed his rights to privacy and/or his right to equality of treatment by a public authority.
Yes it's supposed to be innocent until proved guilty. After conviction post up the criminals, not the accused.
Police can publish an accused's photo but no mugshots
THE POLICE SERVICE can publish images, names and addresses of an accused where the law permits it.
However, the TTPS cannot disseminate the police booking photographs or mugshots. This was the ruling of Justice Frank Seepersad on February 14, as he upheld only one aspect of a police officer’s lawsuit against the State.
Acting Cpl Narindra Beharry, who saw his mugshot on several media sites and complained that the dissemination of his mugshot violated his right to privacy, sued the State for the alleged breaches of his constitutional rights.
The right to privacy aspect of Beharry’s claim was rejected by the judge. He did agree the police acted inappropriately by publishing the officer’s mugshot, although he did not award him any compensation.
In his ruling, Seepersad said, “This society is inundated with criminal activity and most citizens live in fear. With every passing year, the situation worsens.
“There seems to be no effective plan to abate the lawlessness and members of the public feel helpless. Against this backdrop of societal dysfunction, citizens and residents should be made aware of the persons who are charged and brought before the court,” he said, as he held that the police can publish photographs of an accused person.
“The free and unfettered dissemination of information within the parameters of the law is one of the foundational pillars upon which a democracy is premised.
“Once persons are charged, save where the statute prohibits, the media and the TTPS cannot be condemned if they elect to publish the image of accused persons and it is ludicrous to contend that any such publication infringes the right to privacy or that same is defamatory.”
He said the police had a duty to keep the public informed.
“The claimant is a police officer and having found himself in a situation where a criminal charge had to be instituted against him, he cannot now claim that he has a right to privacy with the dissemination of his image for the said charge.”
He said the police could use photographs of an accused already in the public domain.
For officers, the police can use photos on their files such as those when officers applied for the job, those available on the internet or updated photos taken for employment records.
“The court is therefore resolute in its view that it was in the public’s interest to publish an image of the claimant but finds that an unauthorised or improper photograph was used…”
However, he said the legislation limited the use of mugshots for identification purposes only.
“The TTPS has no legislative authority nor does it have the capacity to interpret, alter or amend legislation.”
He was referring to the police's media policy explained by ASP Joanne Archie, manager of the police service’s corporate communications unit, which was updated in 2021 and approved in January 2022. It is reviewed every two years, with the next review carded for January 2024.
Seepersad said the implementation of the policy to use mugshots to identify an accused to the public was flawed.
“An internal TTPS ‘media policy’ cannot be used to circumvent the limitations imposed under section 50 of the Act. Mugshots carry a sinister connotation. The unique way in which these shots are taken communicates that the person whose image has been captured has been charged with a criminal offence and it would be patently unfair and prejudicial for an individual who has been acquitted to have his mugshot available for public access, in perpetuity.”
In declaring that the police could publish the photograph of an accused, Seepersad said, “The public at large, except where a matter is to be conducted in camera, has the right to attend a court hearing and to view the proceedings. The judicial system itself does not shield members of the public from knowing the identity of accused persons.”
He said an individual’s rights and those of the general interest of the community must be balanced.
“There can be no merit in the assertion that the right to privacy prohibits the dissemination of an accused’s image.
“Although the presumption of innocence is the golden thread that is interwoven into the fabric of the criminal justice system, the fact that a person is charged, cannot be ignored…
“In a society plagued by crime, the rights of those who are charged cannot trump the rights of those who elect to obey the law and law-abiding citizens should be provided with any information which enables them to institute the necessary adjustments and engage the requisite precautions to protect their property and person.”
He added, “Unless a statute provides otherwise, there can be no legitimate prohibition against the publication of the photograph of any accused.”
Seepersad said photographs obtained from social media could be published by the media and the police but not mugshots.
In January 2023, Beharry was charged with assaulting a civilian at the Valencia police post on July 3, 2022.
Officers of the Professional Standards Bureau took his police booking photograph after he was charged, which he acknowledged, was the standard procedure under the Police Service Act, which permits the taking of a photograph of someone charged for identification purposes.
Beharry said after he appeared in court virtually, he was shocked to see his mugshot in circulation in the print, television and social media as well as on the police service’s Beyond the Tape television programme.
Beharry’s photograph accompanied a media release from the police service’s communications department on January 13, 2023.
He says his mugshot is still in circulation on the internet.
In 2021, Justice Margaret Mohammed ordered the police commissioner to destroy mugshots and physical measurement records of persons acquitted of criminal offences who have no pending matters before the courts.
In February 2023, Justice Carol Gobin also ruled on a lawsuit by a local golfer involving the police using his mugshot, which accompanied a police press release when he was charged.
Since the ruling by both judges, the police service no longer provides photographs with their media releases when someone is charged with an offence.
In October 2023, a High Court judge also ordered compensation for another police officer whose mugshot was disseminated by the police to media houses and the public after he was charged with misbehaviour in public office.
Attorneys Lee Merry and Kelston Pope represented Beharry. Janique Mitchell represented the State.
pugboy wrote:now watch beyond tape for first time with new clowns, real failure
time to close that show
mero wrote:Who de forq allyuh talking bout? Who is fly? Marlan?
Who is who ex?
Return to “Ole talk and more Ole talk”
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 79 guests
