By LYNAIRE MUNNINGS

Tribune Staff Reporter

lmunnings@tribunemedia.net

A SUPREME Court judge has ruled that a police inspector has an arguable case against the Commissioner of Police and the Attorney General, granting him leave to pursue a judicial review over disciplinary measures taken against him.

Justice Carla D Card-Stubbs delivered the ruling, issuing a stay of all disciplinary proceedings until the judicial review is resolved or the court gives further directions. The inspector must file and serve his application within 14 days or risk having the stay lifted.

Inspector Garvin Evans claims that the commissioner failed to follow mandatory disciplinary procedures outlined in the Constitution, the Police Force Act, and the Police Service Commission Regulations. He argues that senior officers, inspectors and above, are subject to a distinct disciplinary process that was not followed in his case.

In his affidavit, he said that on March 16, 2022, he was summoned to the Police Complaints Unit, served with six disciplinary notices, and later formally arraigned.

Insp Evans said on July 12, 2022, he appeared before the Police Disciplinary Tribunal, where Chief Superintendent David Lockhart formally arraigned him. He faced four counts of major misconduct, along with individual charges for behaviour likely to undermine the impartial discharge of duty, insubordination through words, actions, and demeanour, and failure to comply with a lawful order without valid justification. He pleaded not guilty to all charges.

He said: “At no time did I receive any communication from the Secretary of the Cabinet informing me of any allegation against me as mandated by section 33 of the Police Service Commission Regulations.”

His legal team argued that the disciplinary process was both unlawful and procedurally unfair, severely prejudicing his ability to defend himself.

In response, the Commissioner and the Attorney General claimed he had not been formally charged but had instead been the subject of a preliminary inquiry, a fact-finding investigation, not a disciplinary tribunal.

The respondents also argued that Insp Evans had alternative remedies and had failed to make full and frank disclosure, grounds they said should bar him from judicial review.

Justice Card-Stubbs rejected these arguments, concluding that the inspector had presented “a serious issue to be tried.” She emphasised that the dispute involved conflicting accounts that could not be resolved at the leave stage.

“The applicant, if he can prove his case, asserts that the wrong procedure was embarked upon as it concerns him,” the judge wrote.

She dismissed the claim that Insp Evans had other remedies available, noting that Regulation 34(2) did not apply in this context. She also found no merit in the accusation of material non-disclosure, pointing out that his status as an inspector was not concealed from the court.

Although both parties had agreed to pause proceedings during the application, Justice Card-Stubbs formally stayed the disciplinary process pending the outcome of the judicial review.