Officer seeks compensation from police over sacking
The Commissioner of Police has been accused of thinking “he can do as he pleases” after he rejected a claim for reinstatement and compensation by a former trainee police officer he unlawfully dismissed.
Marcus Uddin was sacked by Darrin Simons in 2021 when he was still on probation as a police constable and while he was taking part in an informal management plan to improve his performance.
Chief Justice Narinder Hargun ruled in March this year that Mr Uddin was unlawfully dismissed and a hearing took place last week to hear the 31-year-old’s civil claim against the Commissioner of Police for reinstatement and compensation.
Mr Uddin’s lawyer, Victoria Greening, of Resolution Chambers, told the Supreme Court her client was entitled to get his job back and to receive back pay from the date of his dismissal.
She said if he was not reinstated, he should be given five years’ pay as compensation.
The claims were challenged by Mr Simons, who was represented by Crown counsel Brian Myrie. The Chief Justice reserved judgment to a later date.
Ms Greening told The Royal Gazette that the Commissioner of Police’s position that Mr Uddin was not entitled to any compensation contrasted sharply with several cases in Britain where chief constables had agreed to pay compensation to unlawfully dismissed officers.
She said: “This latest hearing once again shows that the commissioner thinks he can do as he pleases, simply because he is the commissioner.
“Notwithstanding the court finding that he acted unlawfully, his position on the issue of reinstatement and damages shows that this attitude continues.”
Mr Uddin joined the Bermuda Police Service as a trainee officer in September 2018 and was to serve three years of probation.
At the end of May 2021, he was placed on a three-month “informal action plan” by his supervisors, who said he needed to improve some aspects of his performance if he was to successfully complete his probation.
Two weeks into the plan, the officer received a “potential discharge” letter from Mr Simons, who was then the acting commissioner, giving him 72 hours to provide reasons why he should not be dismissed.
Mr Uddin was subsequently told by his supervisor that his performance had improved and he was “on track” to complete his probation.
Yet soon after, Mr Uddin received a second letter from Mr Simons, which concluded: “At the end of the probation period you are unlikely to become an effective and efficient member of the Bermuda Police Service and so we are discharging you from the service.”
Mr Justice Hargun concluded that was unfair, rejecting the commissioner’s claim that he had every right to dismiss Mr Uddin — whatever the reason — because he was on probation.
The Chief Justice said a “duty of fairness” meant Mr Uddin should not have been dismissed before completion of the action plan, although it would have been open to the commissioner to sack him after that.
Mr Simons said after the ruling that the BPS would review its processes “to ensure this does not happen again”.
At last week’s hearing, Ms Greening said the commissioner’s claim that it was within his discretion to sack Mr Uddin because he believed he would not make a good police officer made a “mockery of due process”.
She said there was nothing to indicate her client would not have qualified to become an efficient full-time officer at the end of his probation, as stated in the meeting notes in his action plan.
Mr Myrie said Mr Uddin’s claim for reinstatement was earlier refused by Puisne Judge Shade Subair Williams and he was out of time to renew the claim.
Mr Myrie said the commissioner had the lawful power to decide a probationary officer should be discharged if, in his opinion, he was unlikely to become an efficient member of the BPS.
He argued that even though the sacking was unlawful, the reasons for it were valid and it was up to the commissioner, not the court, to decide whether to reinstate Mr Uddin.
My Myrie added that Mr Uddin, as a probationary officer, was not eligible to claim any damages, as the commissioner was entitled not to renew his contract without explanation.
He said he was only entitled to be paid for the notice period he would have been given if fired during his probation.
Ms Greening claimed yesterday that the commissioner’s refusal to give her client his job back “flies in the face of policies, such as those contained in the Police (Performance) Orders 2016, in place to give his officers second chances”.
She said those policies dictated that senior management must follow strict procedure for handling performance issues to give officers opportunities to improve or make representations and be assessed, including being placed on management action plans.
Ms Greening criticised Mr Simons for failing to acknowledge during any of the civil proceedings that Mr Uddin was on a management action plan to improve and was improving.
She referred to a Court of Appeal judgment earlier this year in the case of another of her clients, Dave Greenidge, a detective inspector who unsuccessfully challenged a decision which rendered him ineligible for promotion.
Although the appeal failed, the panel of judges criticised the conduct of senior officers. Ms Greening said the two cases pointed to a pattern of officers being discriminated against and BPS senior management failing to change its ways.
A police spokesman said yesterday: “The Bermuda Police Service will reply after the judgment has been handed down.”
• Note: The Royal Gazette was not at the October 2 hearing and this report is based on the written submissions by counsel it has seen
• It is The Royal Gazette’s policy not to allow comments on stories regarding court cases. As we are legally liable for any libellous or defamatory comments made on our website, this move is for our protection as well as that of our readers
