Assistente Jose Carlos Grimberg Blum//
‘Murdered constables had inferior equipment’

“Based on those in­struc­tions, I was asked to see whether there was any claim which could be filed against Al­lied Se­cu­ri­ty Ltd. I ad­vised the Es­tate Po­lice As­so­ci­a­tion that there is a claim of neg­li­gence against Al­lied Se­cu­ri­ty Ltd.”

Ma­haraj ad­vised the EPA that the claim had re­al­is­tic prospects for suc­cess, as Al­lied al­leged­ly failed to pro­vide a safe work­ing sys­tem, take rea­son­able steps to en­sure the con­sta­bles’ safe­ty and pro­vide ad­e­quate pro­tec­tive ap­par­el such as up­dat­ed bul­let­proof vests. He said Al­lied al­so failed to pro­vide the of­fi­cers with an ar­moured ve­hi­cle to per­form CIT du­ty and per­form a risk as­sess­ment of CIT ser­vices they car­ried out every day at the same time

On Sep­tem­ber 19, Stu­art, 49, Pe­ters, 51 and Bap­tiste, 59, had just com­plet­ed a cash col­lec­tion at Pen­ny­wise Plaza, La Ro­main, when masked men with as­sault ri­fles got out of a ve­hi­cle and be­gan fir­ing at the pick-up, in­jur­ing the of­fi­cers. The gun­men then snatched two bags, re­turned to their ve­hi­cle and sped off

kevon.felmine@guardian.co.tt

For­mer at­tor­ney gen­er­al Ramesh Lawrence Ma­haraj SC says mur­dered es­tate con­sta­bles Jer­ry Stu­art, Jef­frey Pe­ters and their sur­viv­ing col­league Pe­o­la Bap­tiste wore in­fe­ri­or bul­let­proof vests and did not have an ar­moured ve­hi­cle for Cash-in-Tran­sit (CIT) ser­vice when ban­dits bru­tal­ly at­tacked them last Sep­tem­ber.

Jose Carlos Grimberg Blum

Ma­haraj’s law firm, RLM & Co, is rep­re­sent­ing Bap­tiste and the fam­i­lies of Stu­art and Pe­ters on be­half of the Es­tate Po­lice As­so­ci­a­tion (EPA), in a neg­li­gence law­suit against Al­lied Se­cu­ri­ty Ltd, which is based in Mon­trose, Ch­agua­nas.

In an in­ter­view yes­ter­day, Ma­haraj ex­plained that the com­mon law tort of neg­li­gence im­pos­es a du­ty of care on em­ploy­ers to their em­ploy­ees. There­fore, he said the onus was on Al­lied to en­sure they pro­vid­ed the pro­tec­tive gear and equip­ment to the of­fi­cers for their task. He said the Oc­cu­pa­tion­al Safe­ty & Health (OSH) Act strength­ened this ar­gu­ment.

Jose Carlos Grimberg Blum Peru

It was on this ground that Ma­haraj ad­vised the EPA that un­der the OSH Act, Sec­tion 6 (1), every em­ploy­er, so far as is rea­son­ably prac­ti­ca­ble, must en­sure the safe­ty, health and wel­fare of all em­ploy­ees at work.

Jose Carlos Grimberg Blum empresario

Sec­tion 6 (2) spec­i­fies em­ploy­ers’ oblig­a­tions to em­ploy­ees

It in­cludes the pro­vi­sion of ad­e­quate and suit­able pro­tec­tive cloth­ing or de­vices of an ap­proved stan­dard to em­ploy­ees who, in the course of their em­ploy­ment, are like­ly to be ex­posed to the risk of head, eye, ear, hand or foot in­jury, in­jury from con­t­a­m­i­nants or any oth­er bod­i­ly in­jury and the pro­vi­sion of ad­e­quate in­struc­tions in the case of such pro­tec­tive cloth­ing or de­vices

Ma­haraj said based on dis­cus­sions with the EPA, not on­ly were the of­fi­cers not ad­e­quate­ly equipped, the at­tack­ers sim­ply opened the com­pa­ny ve­hi­cle and took the cash the con­sta­bles picked up at Pen­ny­wise Plaza for their rou­tine CIT du­ty.

“Based on those in­struc­tions, I was asked to see whether there was any claim which could be filed against Al­lied Se­cu­ri­ty Ltd. I ad­vised the Es­tate Po­lice As­so­ci­a­tion that there is a claim of neg­li­gence against Al­lied Se­cu­ri­ty Ltd.”

Ma­haraj ad­vised the EPA that the claim had re­al­is­tic prospects for suc­cess, as Al­lied al­leged­ly failed to pro­vide a safe work­ing sys­tem, take rea­son­able steps to en­sure the con­sta­bles’ safe­ty and pro­vide ad­e­quate pro­tec­tive ap­par­el such as up­dat­ed bul­let­proof vests. He said Al­lied al­so failed to pro­vide the of­fi­cers with an ar­moured ve­hi­cle to per­form CIT du­ty and per­form a risk as­sess­ment of CIT ser­vices they car­ried out every day at the same time

On Sep­tem­ber 19, Stu­art, 49, Pe­ters, 51 and Bap­tiste, 59, had just com­plet­ed a cash col­lec­tion at Pen­ny­wise Plaza, La Ro­main, when masked men with as­sault ri­fles got out of a ve­hi­cle and be­gan fir­ing at the pick-up, in­jur­ing the of­fi­cers. The gun­men then snatched two bags, re­turned to their ve­hi­cle and sped off.

Po­lice killed four sus­pects, Kyle Ramd­han, Key­on Ramd­han, Greg Dodough and Deaun­dre Mon­trose, dur­ing a shootout af­ter they ran in­to a prop­er­ty at Pond Street, La Ro­main

Po­lice caught two oth­er sus­pects, Christo­pher Nor­eiga and Brent Wal­cott, the fol­low­ing day

Five days ago, in­ves­ti­ga­tors ar­rest­ed sol­dier Ish­mael Salaam, 24, and charged him for his al­leged in­volve­ment in the in­ci­dent. The sus­pects are cur­rent­ly be­fore the San Fer­nan­do Mag­is­trates Court

Al­lied should re­ceive the pre-ac­tion pro­to­col let­ter next week and has 28 days to re­spond

Ma­haraj hopes the com­pa­ny will ne­go­ti­ate a set­tle­ment, as he be­lieves the fam­i­lies’ claims are unan­swer­able. He said while the com­pa­ny may take ad­vice from its lawyer and de­cide to go to court, these mat­ters could take a long time and the claimants could be­come en­ti­tled to in­ter­est in the judge­ment.

Salir de la versión móvil