1 week Ago
By refusing to allow police officers to enter the courts with their firearms, the heads of the Judiciary might be flouting the law. They are certainly flouting common sense. Last Wednesday, an ugly situation developed at the O’Meara Judicial Complex when a police officer refused to give up his gun and was not allowed to enter the premises.
According to a media statement from the Judiciary, the situation escalated, with the officer threatening to arrest court staff. Obviously, that should not have happened and reflects the overly aggressive attitude of some police officers. However, the Judiciary’s statement went on to say that the screening policy was to “ensure the safety of all building users”.
What does this mean, exactly? Do the Judiciary’s managers believe that armed police are more of a threat than other individuals within the court, including those facing trial? The Judiciary also argued that they are following “international best practice”. That betrays a mimic men mentality. It does not matter what foreign institutions do; the criteria must always be best practice for Trinidad and Tobago.
As rightly observed by head of the T&T Police Service Social and Welfare Association ASP Gideon Dickson, the Judiciary’s stance potentially endangers both the officers and other people. “When you are saying you want police officers to put down their guns to come to court, to a place where criminal elements are assembling, if something erupts there, the police should do what?” he told the Express. ASP Dickson pointed out that criminals are now “operating at greater levels of impunity”.
It is quite possible that some persons may smuggle weapons into a courtroom or even attack from outside the premises. In either scenario, police officers should have their guns on their person. It is also worth noting that since most court sessions are still being held virtually, the judges will not be in peril if violence occurs.
The Judiciary has never given any good explanation for continuing this policy more than 18 months after the World Health Organisation (WHO) declared the pandemic over. But, if the judges had to be physically present, we suspect many of them might prefer the added security of armed police officers in their courtroom. The Judiciary may also be putting international norms above the laws of this country.
Section 45 (f) of the Police Service Act specifies that an officer “shall keep order in and within the precincts and in the vicinity of all courts during all sittings of such courts”. The reasonable implication is that the officer must have the standard equipment he normally uses to do his job, including a firearm. Yet, seeming to forget it is not a law unto itself, the Judiciary states that “it reserves the right to regulate access to all court premises”.
Chief Justice Ivor Archie should let good sense prevail and allow the police to keep their firearms. As matters stand, the Judiciary has failed to present a convincing case for its present policy..
