T&T – Judge Urges Citizens to Record Police Encounters, Calls for Mandatory Body Cameras

2026-02-04 - 14:07

A High Court judge has called for the mandatory use of body-worn cameras by police officers and, in the interim, urged both citizens and law enforcement to rely on cellphones and CCTV cameras to record police encounters. The call came from Justice Frank Seepersad in a ruling delivered in favour of a member of the Trinidad and Tobago Regiment who successfully sued the State for wrongful arrest and malicious prosecution. In a strongly worded judgment, Justice Seepersad also raised alarm over what he described as the near-total erosion of public trust in the Trinidad and Tobago Police Service (TTPS), calling the situation “disturbing and deplorable” for a country facing rampant lawlessness. Following a short virtual trial, the court awarded claimant Elton King $75,000 in general damages and an additional $25,000 in aggravated damages, bringing the total award to $100,000, along with his legal costs. King was represented by attorney Sallian Holdip. “This case again highlights the need for a review of the laws pertaining to police accountability,” Justice Seepersad stated. “Recent statistics have indicated that public trust and confidence in the TTPS is under 10 percent. For a Republic which is besieged by rampant lawlessness, this is disturbing and deplorable.” King, a corporal with 15 years of service in the Trinidad and Tobago Regiment, brought legal action against the Office of the Attorney General, the Office of the Commissioner of Police, and Police Constable Marvin Burke. The claim arose from an incident on April 15, 2020. According to court filings, the incident occurred around 8:15 p.m. at the Factory Road, Piarco intersection, where Burke alleged that King illegally changed lanes and nearly collided with another vehicle. However, Justice Seepersad accepted King’s account, finding that he did not drive dangerously but instead slowed down after taking evasive action while the traffic light was green. The judge found that Burke, who later confronted King at a nearby NP service station, acted unprofessionally and that King was fully entitled to record the interaction on his cellphone. “This court accepts the version of events as advanced by the claimant,” Justice Seepersad said, “and finds as a fact that police officer Burke was unprofessional, and the claimant was entitled to record the events which were unfolding.” The court rejected Burke’s claim that King assaulted him by pushing a phone into his face. Justice Seepersad noted that a second officer, SRP Constable Sutherland, kept the parties approximately three and a half feet apart throughout the encounter and observed no such action. In his testimony, Burke admitted that he snatched the phone from King’s hand and instructed him to go to the Arouca Police Station to retrieve it. “If the police’s version was taken at its highest it is impossible to understand how the recording could have amounted to an assault,” the judge said, adding that the assertion that the phone was thrust into Burke’s face “lacks credibility and is rejected, as no utility would have been achieved by recording his nostrils.” When King later went to the station to collect his phone and report Burke’s conduct, he was arrested, detained overnight in unsanitary conditions, and charged with assaulting a police officer, disorderly behaviour, and dangerous driving. Those charges were dismissed in August 2021 for want of prosecution after police witnesses repeatedly failed to attend court. Justice Seepersad described the State’s account of events as “improbable,” noting that it was highly unlikely police would instruct a disorderly individual to return to his vehicle and follow them to a station rather than arresting him at the scene. The court found there were “absolutely no reasonable and probable grounds” to charge King and ruled that, based on the evidence, “the requisite degree of malice can be inferred.” “Record the Police” In a broader critique of policing culture, Justice Seepersad condemned what he termed an “appalling failure” by TTPS leadership to address the “crass and disrespectful manner in which far too many officers interact with citizens.” “The curbing of crime requires public cooperation, and the relationship between the police and the public is symbiotic,” he said. “Effective policing is contingent upon the provision of credible information from discerning members of society. When public trust and confidence in the TTPS is almost nonexistent, it is obvious that crime will not be curtailed.” On accountability, the judge said that in the absence of legislation making officers personally liable for damages arising from malicious prosecutions, the mandatory use of body cameras must be prioritised. “Contemporaneous recordings provide the best evidence and protect all parties involved,” Justice Seepersad said. “Until this is done, CCTV cameras and cellphones must be used to record all interactions between citizens and the police, and citizens are urged to use their phones to record all matters involving breaches of the law and the manner in which the police engage the public.” “As the guardian of the Constitution,” he added, “this court will unapologetically ensure that the rights of citizens are protected and will continue to declare that violations will not be tolerated. The abuse of police authority has no place in a functional democracy, and the TTPS must remember that their mandate is to protect and serve, not to persecute and subjugate.”