2 weeks ago
3
Justice Nadia Kangaloo. - A staff sergeant in the Trinidad and Tobago Defence Force (TTDF) has appealed a 2023 High Court ruling which dismissed his challenge against a decision by the Chief of Defence Staff (CDS) to block his promotion to warrant officer.
Staff Sergeant Russell Reyes contends that Justice Nadia Kangaloo erred in law when she dismissed his lawsuit challenging the CDS’s decision to override a recommendation for his promotion made by his commanding officer.
Reyes maintains that the CDS acted without legal authority in rejecting the recommendation, arguing that the disciplinary infraction cited against him should not have been considered since it was a “spent” conviction and no longer part of his service record under military law. He also complained of an unreasonable delay by the TTDF in dealing with the disciplinary matter.
Reyes first challenged the CDS’s decision in 2022 by filing a judicial review application in the High Court, accompanied by a certificate of urgency, as he was nearing his mandatory retirement date of January 25, 2023. Had he succeeded, he would have remained in the Defence Force until 2026 at the rank of Warrant Officer Class II.
The High Court, however, dismissed his claim in October 2023, with Justice Kangaloo finding that Reyes was still under probation when his disciplinary reprimand expired and therefore could not properly be considered for promotion.
She also ruled that the CDS was within his authority to deny the promotion in the operational interest of the TTDF.
Reyes has appealed, arguing that the judge miscalculated the relevant dates and misinterpreted the CDS’s authority under the Defence Act. He maintains that his severe reprimand, imposed in March 2021, was “spent” by November 2021, months before he was recommended for promotion in early 2022, and that he had no pending disciplinary issues at that time.
He is asking the Court of Appeal to set aside the High Court’s ruling, reinstate him at the rank of Warrant Officer Class II, or award him compensation for lost pay and benefits.
In support of his case, Reyes pointed to letters from his commanding officers in February 2022 describing him as “efficient, assiduous and dedicated” and confirming that he met all criteria for promotion. He contends that the CDS had no legal authority to override those recommendations and that doing so amounted to further punishment for a matter already resolved.
Representing Reyes, attorney Arden Williams argued before the Court of Appeal on November 3 that Justice Kangaloo was wrong to find that Reyes could not rely on a legitimate expectation of promotion based on established military customs and procedures.
According to Williams, the Defence Force’s practice is that a soldier may not be promoted if there is a pending disciplinary matter, but in Reyes’s case, there was none. “His infraction was spent and no longer on his record,” Williams said, adding that the CDS had no power to override the commanding officer’s recommendation.
He further submitted that the Defence Force Act distinguishes between administrative and operational functions, and the CDS’s intervention in the promotion process was unlawful, as promotions were “entirely administrative.”
“There is nothing on the evidence to show why he should not be promoted,” Williams told the court, asserting that promotions in the TTDF follow a “well-established practice” once the commanding officer makes a recommendation.
Under the TTDF’s promotion process, the Commanding Officer first issues a call to fill vacancies at specific ranks, circulating a list of the most senior eligible officers to unit commanders for consideration. Each Unit Commander then assesses the officers under their command, evaluating them based on completion of required qualifying courses, performance appraisals over two consecutive periods, and whether they have any pending disciplinary or criminal matters. After reviewing these assessments, the Commanding Officer recommends for promotion those officers deemed suitable and eligible, submitting the names to the CDS, who reviews and approves the recommendations. Officers are then promoted to acting rank for a probationary period before confirmation.
Reyes asserts he had an unambiguous recommendation from his commanding officer for promotion.
Williams also questioned whether the CDS, at the time, was acting as the designated officer for the Defence Council, which includes the Minister of National Security, the Permanent Secretary, and two Cabinet ministers.
According to him, the Defence Act sets out the responsibility of the Defence Council, which is responsible for matters concerning the command, administration and discipline of the TTDF.
He further argued that the disciplinary infraction was treated as a minor issue by the TTDF, since Reyes was not sent before a court-martial. To raise it again as grounds to deny his promotion, he said, amounted to “further punishment.”
Appeal Court judges Chief Justice Ronnie Boodoosingh, and Justices of Appeal Peter Rajkumar and Maria Wilson presided over the hearing. Both Williams and Mary Davis, who represented the State, were directed to file additional submissions on the presumption of regularity as it applied to the actions of the CDS.
A ruling will be delivered after the court considers those submissions.
English (US) ·