Police Inspector Michael Laudat sues Police Chief, Police Service Commission

The High Court has granted leave to Michael Laudat, Inspector of Police for Judicial Review in a civil matter he has filed against Chief of Police Daniel Carbon and the Police Service Commission (PSC).

Laudat, a police officer for 35 years, is challenging the decision of the PSC to appoint McKelson Ferrol to the post of Assistant Superintendent over him after the retirement of Assistant Superintendent Stafford Vigilant.

Laudat wrote that he has acted on several occasions as Assistant Superintendent of Police and he applied for the vacant position; however, Chief Daniel Carbon did not recommend him despite being the most qualified and experienced officer for that post.

In his affidavit in support of his application, Laudat, who is attached to the office of the Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP) as Principal Police Prosecutor said he has attended several local, regional and international training programmes from 1990 to 2013 in various fields of crime, prosecuting among others.

He said he was appointed Inspector of Police in March 2003 and he was superior in the "content of qualification, seniority, broad based police experience, educational and special qualifications, merit and ability and relative efficiency to Assistant Superintendent of police McKelson Ferrol."

Ferrol was appointed to the office of Inspector of Police from December 1, 2011.

"In the circumstances, I say that the decision to overlook me for promotion in favour of a police officer who was less qualified was unreasonable, unfair, biased and deprived me of the legitimate expectation to be promoted based on the object criteria of seniority, experience, educational qualifications, merit and ability together with relative efficiency," Laudat said in the court document.

"In the circumstances, I say that such a decision is a proper cause for judicial review. I have been informed and verily believe in the normal course, the Police Service Commission failed to provide reasons for the said appointments and why they were made instead of me when I was more qualified in terms of seniority, experience, educational qualifications, merit and ability together with relative efficiency and academic training."

Laudat added: "The appointment made by the Police Service Commission was biased and not made on any objective criteria based on seniority, experience, educational qualifications, merit and ability, together with relative efficiency and academic training. In so doing, the Commission acted unlawfully and illegally."

He said that based on these premises he believes the Chief of Police and the Police Service Commission have acted procedurally unreasonably and illegally in not promoting him to the post of Assistant Superintendent of police.