THE mother of the teenage boy who was allegedly struck by an unmarked police vehicle in 2023 has initiated legal proceedings against the Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP) after charges of dangerous driving against Deputy Commissioner of Police (DCP) Suzette Martin were discontinued.
The case stems from an April 2023 incident on the Priority Bus Route, where the boy was allegedly struck by an unmarked police SUV driven by Martin.
Despite initial approval of the charges by the DPP and recommendations from the Police Complaints Authority (PCA), the DPP issued a notice of discontinuance on December 16, citing insufficient evidence after a review of CCTV footage and eyewitness statements.
In her pre-action protocol letter, attorneys representing the mother challenge the DPP’s decision, describing it as “irrational” and lacking transparency.
Kiel Taklalsingh, Renuka Rambhajan, Naveen Maraj, Steven Mawer and Keron Ramkhalwhan represent the boy and his mother.
>
They argue that the family was not consulted, nor were their views considered before the charge against Martin was dropped. Additionally, the letter raises concerns over potential bias, public interest and the victim's right to justice.
The mother seeks a judicial review, requesting a detailed statement of reasons for the discontinuation, as well as access to evidence and documents related to the case under the Freedom of Information Act.
The DPP has until January 24, 2025, to respond to the claims, failing which the attorneys intend to proceed with judicial review proceedings.
Ramkhalwhan said their client had received information that Martin was not authorised to use the Priority Bus Route at the time of the incident, nor did she have a PBR pass.
“If true, and the intended applicant stresses that she cannot verify same, this demonstrates disregard for the legal rules governing the use of the PBR and certainly not expected of those entrusted with enforcing the law.
“In any event, a user of the PBR is expected to exercise due care and attention with regard to the pedestrian traffic and the traffic signals at the time.”
The letter referred to a Police Complaints Authority press release on the issue and its notice of a referral to the DPP and Police Commissioner.
In its press release, the PCA said, “CCTV footage provided independent evidence that at the time when the teenager was attempting to cross the PBR, the pedestrian crossing light was on, and the traffic light was on red.”
It noted that while the teenager failed to use the zebra crossing, and failed to look both ways before crossing, pedestrians had the right of way to cross at that time.
>
“A user of the PBR is expected to exercise due care and attention, having regard to the pedestrian traffic and the traffic signals at the time.
“The CCTV footage showed that despite the traffic signals at the time and the pedestrian traffic around the vehicle, the senior superintendent continued moving forward.
“The CCTV footage showed that even when the vehicle being driven by the senior superintendent encountered the teenager the senior superintendent failed and/or neglected and/or refused to exit the vehicle to render assistance.
“The senior superintendent can be seen talking to the teenager whilst remaining seated in the vehicle.”
The release said the teenager was taken to the paediatric emergency department of the Eric Williams Medical Sciences Complex, was examined and x-rays revealed a likely fracture of the foot. He also suffered minor abrasions to the left elbow.
“The PCA’s investigation also revealed that there exists no evidence of a PBR pass being issued in relation to the vehicle she was driving on the bus route,” the PCA’s release further noted.
It said an assistant commissioner was assigned to investigate and the PCA received an incomplete copy of his investigative file in July 2023.
“The information gathered during the PCA’s investigation was referred to the Offices of the DPP and the CoP for the consideration of instituting criminal and disciplinary proceedings, respectively.”
>
On December 18, DPP Roger Gaspard, SC, explained his decision to discontinue the charge against Martin, citing the "extremely tenuous" nature of the evidence.
Gaspard said it was unlikely a conviction could have been supported.
“Having reviewed the CCTV footage of the incident, the evidence for dangerous driving was extremely tenuous,” he said.
Gaspard acknowledged that while his office initially advised laying the charge, a re-evaluation of the evidence prompted the decision to file a notice of discontinuance.
“We would have to look at a fair prospect of conviction, and when you look at the evidence, it would not meet the barometer. I am of the view there was no fair prospect of conviction on the evidence we had.”
But, in the pre-action to the DPP, Ramkhalwhan said, “Most respectfully, it is somewhat illogical, unreasonable, and inexplicable that both the DPP and the PCA were in possession of this very CCTV footage, concluded at that time that there was sufficient basis to charge, and thereafter, the DPP (after allegedly reviewing this footage) would unilaterally come to a conclusion that there was insufficient evidence.
“One is forced to ask the following questions: did the CCTV footage change? Is it that the DPP is in the habit of not reviewing evidence thoroughly before citizens of this country are charged?
“Is the PCA’s view not of sufficient gravitas to allow the charges to run its natural course? Is it that another prosecutor reviewed the evidence on the first occasion and found sufficient evidence to charge but the DPP simply disagrees with the view?”
He also said the boy’s parents were not consulted and only learned of the discontinuance through media reports.
>
“The absence of official notification or consultation has left the family in a state of uncertainty and distress, effectively ‘hearing it through the grapevine.’
“This lack of direct communication from the authorities meant that the family had to witness the entire sequence of events unfold in the public domain, without any prior explanation from the relevant agencies involved.”
Ramkhalwhan said, “It is no secret that crime and criminality are now rampant in our society. While the law has evolved to cast responsibility upon the state to prosecute criminal conduct, one must not lose sight of the fact that the ordinary citizen is entitled to justice for wrongs committed against them.
“The DPP may very well be constitutionally empowered to dismiss/discontinue criminal charges, but the office of the DPP cannot ignore the fact that his constitutional remit is derived from the consent of citizens of this Republic who are besieged with criminality on an almost daily basis and who are entitled to fundamental justice.
“From both a prosecutorial policy standpoint and an evidential standpoint, the intended applicant cannot understand your decision to drop these charges.
“We are of the respectful review that citizens and victims of crime must have a say if the charges against their alleged assailant are to be summarily dropped, particularly in the context of circumstances where both the DPP’s office and the PCA were previously of the view that charges should be laid in the first place.”
The letter also said, “The intended applicant wishes to remind the DPP’s office that basic human decency, courtesy and respect for the victims of crime should be paramount. Prosecutions are not mere administrative formalities but solemn proceedings with significant, and real-world consequences for the victims and their families.
“As such, it is imperative that the decision-making process be conducted with due regard for justice, transparency and the basic rights of those affected.”
