High Court rules Regiment unfairly blocked officer’s promotion, orders damages

News Jada Loutoo 13 Hrs Ago

The Hall of Justice. - File photo

A High Court judge has ruled that the Trinidad and Tobago Defence Force (TTDF) unlawfully denied Warrant Officer Class II (WOII) Marlon Pierre promotion to Warrant Officer Class I, declaring that the criteria used to block his advancement violated the Constitution.

Justice Westmin James found that senior officers applied an unpromulgated and unauthorised performance-rating system that unfairly ranked Pierre below junior colleagues, leading to his non-recommendation for promotion in February 2024. The court held that the process breached Section 4(b) of the Constitution, which guarantees the right to the protection of the law.

Pierre, who has served 29 years in the Regiment and has held the rank of Warrant Officer Class II since July 2019, argued that commanders used performance appraisals not recognised in the Regiment’s Standing Orders and failed to substantiate negative claims about his “mannerisms” and “tone.” He said those allegations, made by a junior officer, were never investigated or supported with evidence and resulted in lower annual ratings that disqualified him under the disputed system.

The court agreed, ruling that the Chief of Defence Staff and the Commanding Officer of the TT Regiment failed to annually appraise Pierre, verify complaints against him, or provide performance feedback before drafting his confidential reports. The judge declared that promoting junior officers ahead of Pierre was unlawful and that he had a legitimate expectation of being promoted as of February 5, 2024.

James ordered the defendants to pay $50,000 in compensatory damages and $50,000 in vindicatory damages and directed that legal costs be assessed if not agreed. The court also found that the Regiment’s alleged “mathematical equation” system, under which mixed biannual ratings were combined to produce a lower annual score, had no basis in standing orders or approval from the Defence Council.

Pierre said the denial of promotion cost him seniority, career prospects, and thousands of dollars in salary, allowances, and future pension benefits. He also claimed the process caused significant stress, forcing him to seek medical assistance for insomnia.

The judgment followed a series of Orders to Attend, at which Pierre challenged the accuracy of his appraisals and asserted that the officers who graded him did not supervise him during the relevant periods. The court declared those assessments irregular and unconstitutional.

In support of his claim, Pierre stated that he felt the goal post was being intentionally shifted to prevent him from being promoted.

Pierre was represented by attorneys Arden Williams and Mariah Ramrattan.