Head of the Police Complaints Authority (PCA) David West and its deputy director, Michelle Solomon-Baksh, had their legal challenge over their proposed pay cuts dismissed by the court.Yesterday, High Court Judge Frank Seepersad dismissed their claims against the Salaries Review Commission (SRC) recommendations that were based on the 120th SRC report which was adopted by Cabinet in 2024.The salaries recommended in the report are below those which are currently being paid to West and Solomon-Baksh. Last year, they were granted leave to file for judicial review.
PCA deputy director: Michelle Solomon-Baksh
Attorneys for West and Solomon-Baksh argued that the recommendations for their salaries and other terms of conditions were in breach of the principles of natural justice and their legitimate expectation, as they were not consulted, and that the procedure used was irregular. They argued that there was consultation in the past.
Justice Frank Seepersad
The court, however, was not moved that they needed to have direct position-holder involvement in the process, including the “sore thumbing” process, and that the exercise undertaken by the SRC was not materially unfair.Seepersad noted that if he were to hold that the claimants were entitled to be interviewed and consulted in the manner in which they outlined, it would impose “onerous financial and human resource obligations” upon the SRC, as it would then have to be extended to all 325 offices, and 950 people, under its remit.The court also noted that the possibility of a downgrading of positions was always within consideration during evaluations. He said the SRC informed that there would be a “comprehensive review” of all allowances and benefits and this could not necessarily have been equated to only an increase. Seepersad said, in his view, the nature of a comprehensive review suggests that remuneration, terms and conditions could be varied or altered either upwards or downwards.He stated that the SRC’s evidence established that the positions were objectively and fairly scored.In terms of legitimate expectation, the court said it was always open to the SRC to redefine or refine how it executed its process, as he found that the course engaged by Commission was reasonable, rationale and procedurally fair. He further stated that there was no irregularity in the process engaged.He ruled that fairness does not mean rigidity, as he stated that the Constitution allows for progress, not stagnation. The judge affirmed modern, objective and professional accepted job evaluation systems are a legitimate means of determining remuneration across the public service.Seepersad said constitutional responsibility carries with it the discretion to refine and improve the methodologies by which those objectives are achieved; and as long as they are lawful, objective and procedurally fair, the court ought not to inhibit innovation by requiring the Commission to remain anchored to practices which have been overtaken by evolving standard and accepted international best practice.He further noted that the role of the office holder is to inform the process, not to determine its outcome. “Viewed in this context, the methodology adopted by the Commissioner does not reflect a departure from the requirements of procedural fairness but an affirmation of them,” Seepersad said.Seepersad also recognised the distinct constitutional roles of the SRC and the court. He stated that the Constitution establishes independent institutions not because they are infallible, but because each institution has been entrusted with a distinct constitutional function.“The Judiciary secures legality, the Commission evaluates remuneration, and the Executive governs. Constitutional equilibrium is maintained when each institution faithfully performs its own role while respecting the limits of its authority,” Seepersad said.Seepersad found that the SRC acted fairly, objectively and within its constitutional mandate as he dismissed the claimants’ matter.West and Solomon-Baksh were represented by senior counsel Douglas Mendes and attorney Anthony Bullock, instructed by attorney Imran Ali.The SRC was represented by senior counsel Jason Mootoo, attorney Tamara Toolsie, instructed by attorney Miranda Julien.The Cabinet, which was also joined as an interested party in the matter, was represented by Shalini Singh, instructed by attorney Vincent Jardine.
