Last Wednesday I was speaking to Wayne Hayde about his current
job, when it brought home to me how deprived our Police Service
is in many ways.
Wayne Hayde, The Watchman, as many will recall, was a policeman
who was well known for his biting social commentaries.
About 12 years ago, he became a lawyer, and then earned a
master’s degree in criminal justice. In the midst of
all that, he found time to be president of the Police Second
Division Social and Welfare Association.
Although this column is not about Wayne, per se, his personal
history itself is a source of inspiration. When he entered
the Police Service Wayne did not even have his O-Levels and
had no support structure.
Yet, through application and dedication, he was able to acquire
his basic subjects, then his Advanced Levels and thereafter
entered UWI to do his bachelor’s degree. While at UWI,
his leadership qualities and assertiveness led to his becoming
the student council president—possibly his first “representative”
role, as it were.
After his first degree, there was no stopping Wayne. There
was a person with his head on his shoulders, I have always
thought.
He is now working with the United Nations based in East Timor,
a newly-created state that is just north of Australia and
to the extreme east of the Indian Ocean.
Wayne’s first job there was as legal adviser to the commissioner
of police.
When he told me this, some time ago, it brought home to me
how deficient we are in T&T in recognition of basic needs
of so many of our institutions.
Imagine a country with a police service, made up of hundreds
of police officers, that does not have a single legal adviser,
far less a legal department.
This is almost unimaginable in this modern day. Some might
argue that the office of the DPP performs, or should perform,
that function.
To conclude this, however, is to fail to appreciate the difference
in roles between the two offices.
The DPP is the chief prosecutor in this country, and is in
control of all prosecutions. While the police may and do prosecute
matters in the magistrates’ courts, a fact that is based
historically on expediency, this is not their chief function
in respect of criminal matters.
They are expected to investigate crimes, which involves collecting
evidence and interviewing suspects, and make decisions daily
on whether there is sufficient evidence to charge; whether
a suspect should be charged.
In order to do so, they must at times know and interpret complex
issues of law. While some aspects of law are taught as part
of their training, police officers are not expected to be
qualified in law (those who do qualify as lawyers eventually
leave the service to practise their profession).
Yet, they are expected to know the criminal law. Almost every
day the law develops. For example, a few years ago a police
officer was not required to tell a suspect of his right to
an attorney upon arrest.
Then came Whiteman and confessions were challenged on non-conformity
with that case—failure to inform a suspect of his right
to a lawyer before interrogation.
The whole concept of pre-trial disclosure has also changed
now, requiring an investigator to make detailed notes of everything
he does and ensuring that records are kept in station diaries
and pocket diaries.
These may have to be produced in evidence. The quality of
identification evidence can be the subject of minute challenge
and in investigating a police officer must be sure to ask
the right questions.
Is there any legal assistance given to the average police
officer to appreciate aspects of the law that he may need
to know on a given day?
Whenever a new case emanates from the Court of Appeal or Privy
Council touching criminal law or procedure, I have seen police
officers frantically trying to obtain copies from any lawyer
with whom they are friendly.
They also seek interpretation from lawyer friends they may
have. They buy or borrow legal texts to try to understand
the law as it develops, so they can better determine what
evidence they may need to charge or how their investigation
should proceed.
All of these that would seem to be a necessary part of the
support available to police officers, but it is not; they
have no immediate access to legal advice.
With the best will in the world, the DPP’s Department
cannot perform this function on a full-time basis. The DPP
can and does advise in serious matters as to whether a case
is made out and what charge should be preferred.
This is a far cry, however, from the on-the-spot kind of advice
and/or assistance that is required by most police officers
as they try to prepare their cases in the thousands of matters
they lay each year.
Not even the commissioner of police has a legal adviser, yet
in almost every government ministry there now exists a legal
department. It is a crying shame.
Imagine in East Timor, a country that has existed for just
three years, the need was seen at the outset for the commissioner
to have a legal adviser, yet in T&T, which boasts a much
larger police service, there is no such appreciation by the
authorities.
Meanwhile, serious and more complicated crime has grown. Various
specialised police units have been set up. Still no legal
department. Is it any wonder that the AG had to step out of
his crease recently to talk of guidelines for one such unit
that was breaching the law?
If the police had their own lawyers, I venture to say the
Bajan fishermen issue would have been avoided.
It is all too clear that the police service needs its own
legal department. The situation could become worse if this
is not addressed now.
