Cop on murder charge challenges ammo charge during SoE

- File photo

A police officer charged with the murder of livestock farmer Vishnu Lalla in November has been permitted to pursue judicial review proceedings challenging a police decision to charge him under the Firearms Act for possession of ammunition during the 2025 state of emergency (SoE).

In an order issued on January 5, Justice Devindra Rampersad permitted Jason Beetam to proceed with claims that the charging decision by the police’s Anti-Kidnapping Unit was unlawful, ultra vires and in breach of his constitutional rights. The court also set a virtual hearing for February 26.

Beetam is seeking declarations and orders of certiorari to quash both the November 17, 2025, decision to charge him under Section 6(1) of the Firearms Act and the related complaint on oath filed in the High Court.

According to court filings, Beetam was arrested on November 9, 2025, after police conducted searches under the Emergency Powers Regulations (EPR) during the SoE declared on July 18, 2025. Officers said ammunition was found during a vehicle search at a Couva residence, after which Beetam was arrested, and further searches were carried out under emergency powers. No other illegal items were found.

Beetam’s attorneys, Keron Ramkhalwhan and Anwar Hosein, argue that throughout the investigation, police relied exclusively on emergency powers, treating possession of ammunition as an offence under the EPR, which creates a separate summary offence with its own detention, prosecution and bail framework. They contend that, having exercised emergency powers, police were required to charge him under the EPR rather than the Firearms Act, which carries heavier penalties.

The claim centres on the interpretation of Regulation 20A, an amendment to the EPR made on November 17, 2025, which states that evidence of offences under other written laws found during lawful EPR searches may result in prosecution under those laws. Prosecutors have relied on that regulation to justify the Firearms Act charge.

Beetam’s legal team disputes that interpretation, arguing Regulation 20A does not apply to offences specifically created by the EPR, such as possession of ammunition, and that charging under the Firearms Act circumvents safeguards and procedures embedded in emergency law. They also allege the decision was unreasonable, taken for an improper purpose and breached Beetam’s legitimate expectation that he would be prosecuted, if at all, under emergency regulations.

“The applicant submits that the impugned decision is ultra vires the EPR and unlawful as the investigator/s exercised their statutory powers pursuant to the EPR at all material times.

“Succinctly stated, the respondent has no statutory power to charge the applicant contrary to the Firearms Act.

“The applicant submits that if the police interpretation is allowed, then they will be allowed to circumvent the requirements of ordinary law to effect ordinary law penalties. This is not the purpose and intention of the EPR.”

According to the court filings, the proceedings do not challenge the factual allegation that ammunition was found, nor do they address the murder charge against Beetam. His attorneys argue that the case raises broader questions about how police may lawfully exercise and transition between emergency powers and ordinary criminal law during a SoE.

“As it relates specifically to the EPR, the regulations establish a statutory framework for the detention of individuals by police officers.

“Following an arrest pursuant to the EPR, a person may be detained for inquiries (a person cannot be detained for inquiries if a police officer has exercised his statutory powers of arrest pursuant to the Criminal Law Act and/or his common law powers of arrest).”

In Beetam’s case, his lawsuit contends investigators failed to say if the offence being investigated, after ammunition and vehicle number plates were allegedly found during the vehicle search, was under the Firearms Act, the EPR or ordinary law.

“The claimant assumed at that stage that he was being detained and investigated under the ordinary law due to the allegation of kidnapping.”

“While the searches were conducted pursuant to the EPR, the claimant was unable to ascertain whether he was being arrested and detained pursuant to ordinary law and/or emergency law. “At no material time was the claimant informed that he was being arrested and detained pursuant to the EPR.

“At this stage, there was no indication that he was arrested and detained pursuant to the EPR.”

On November 10, Beetam was cautioned for the offence of murder, and after a change of correspondence between his attorneys and those for the police, he was told he was detained pursuant to the EPR, which warranted further detention to continue investigations, including inquiries into ammunition possession. Seven days later, he was charged with possession of 19 rounds of ammunition and murder.

Beetam, 28, and another man appeared before a High Court Master on November 19, when he was granted bail of $170,000 on the ammunition charge.

A status hearing was set for July 29, this year, with a sufficiency hearing on October 2.

At that hearing, Ramkhalwhan had signalled his intention to file judicial review proceedings and a constitutional claim challenging Beetam’s detention by police and the subsequent laying of the charge.