Two rulings from Trinidad & Tobago

Trinidad & Tobago Newsday reports that the Court of Appeals has upheld a High Court decision allowing judicial review in a military case. Excerpt:

The appellant, the Chief of Defence Staff, sought to overturn an order made by Justice Joan Charles on June 24, 2024, which refused to set aside leave granted to Edwards to challenge the defence force’s decision not to re-engage and roster him following a prior court ruling that declared his discharge illegal.

Edwards, a soldier in the defence force, was discharged in May 2014 under a “zero tolerance” policy after he was charged with criminal offences. In a separate constitutional action decided in June 2020, then-Justice James Aboud ruled that the policy, as applied to Edwards, was unlawful, ultra vires the Defence Force Act and in breach of several of his constitutional rights. Aboud awarded Edwards $15,000 in damages but made no order for reinstatement.

After the Chief of Defence Staff declined, by letter dated September 22, 2020, to roster Edwards for duty, Edwards sought judicial review to challenge that refusal. The defence chief argued that Edwards had failed to disclose material facts, had abused the court process and was barred because reinstatement had been considered and rejected in the earlier case.

In dismissing the appeal, Bereaux said the threshold for granting leave for judicial review is low and that such decisions should be overturned only sparingly. He found that Justice Charles was entitled to conclude that Edwards had an arguable case and had not breached his duty of candour.

The Court of Appeals' December 17, 2025 careful decision in Chief of Defence Staff v. Edwards can be found here. Excerpt:

(iv) The question whether the respondent was ready, willing and able to resume duty, arose in the context of re-instatement as a component in the assessment of compensation for the breach of his rights. Because the respondent was then incarcerated and unable to post bail, Aboud J concluded that he was then not able to resume duty. While it is thus correct that Aboud J did consider the issue of reinstatement in the course of the hearing that consideration did not bind Charles J primarily because reinstatement was not sought as a substantive issue by the respondent. In any event, it was unnecessary to seek it formally as a remedy because a finding of illegality by Aboud J would mean that the respondent was always a member of the TTDF and would have remained a member since 2014. Further, that finding could not bind Charles J because his incarceration was due to the fact that he had not been able to post bail and was in respect of a charge of which he had not been convicted and for which he was presumed innocent.

(v) The respondent could not pursue the issue of re-instatement until Aboud J ruled in his favour. That occurred on 3rd June 2020. The effect of the finding of illegality meant that the respondent always remained a member of the TTDF.

(vi) The respondent then brought this claim in November 2020, after the appellant by letter of 22nd September 2020, refused to formally reinstate and roster him. There was no delay in challenging the failure to roster. To the extent that the appellant contends that he remains a member of the TTDF, that is an arguable contention for judicial review.

(11) For these reasons the appeal is dismissed.

Two days later, the High Court decided Hernandez v. Commanding Officer of Trinidad & Tobago Coast Guard, which can be found here. Was it lawful to promote officers who were junior to the claimant? Did he have a right to be promoted based on seniority? Guess the answer?