Wendel Robinson’s Application Comes Up For Hearing

1401

Tuesday 19th June, 2018 –Suspended Commissioner of Police Wendel Robinson heads to the High Court tomorrow (Wednesday), where his application challenging his suspension will come up for hearing.

The top cop was suspended on April 5th by the Police Service Commission (PSC), following allegations of questionable conduct that were levelled against him by several male officers and civilians.

The matter will come up for hearing before Justice Godfrey Smith.

The Police Service Commission and the Attorney General are named as respondents.

Days after his suspension, Robinson’s attorney Sir Richard Chentelham in a pre-action protocol to PSC Chairman, Kelvin John deemed the suspension of his client unlawful and insupportable for several reasons.

The Barbadian attorney told the commission chairman that their actions violated the law. In his letter, the lawyer detailed that he anticipated the revocation of his client’s suspension and his restoration to full duty with all entitlements on or before 20th April, 2018. If not, he will proceed directly to Court without further reference to the Commission.

The PSC from all accounts did not respond to the letter and the suspended Commissioner of police subsequently moved to the High Court, where his request was granted for the matter to be treated as urgent.

Mr. Robinson’s lawyer contended that, “Even if the Commission has a discretion to suspend before instituting an investigation or laying charges against the Commissioner, such a discretion has to be exercised fairly and rationally. The commissioner was afforded no opportunity to comment on the allegations made against him or to be heard before the Commission took such a drastic and punitive sanction. The requirement to afford a person an opportunity to be heard before taking action detrimental to his interests is not an empty formality, but is a fundamental rule of fair play and natural justice which has been breached in his case. In brief, he has not been accorded due process.”