Ranjan Rampersad v Commissioner of Police & Police Service Commission (Trinidad and Tobago)

A points-based promotion scheme is not irrational or procedurally unfair merely because it may be flawed in some respects. The court should consider whether the scheme is applied flexibly and whether affected candidates can make representations capable of correcting imbalances. Evidence that the scheme evolves as weaknesses are exposed, and that individual cases are reconsidered, may show that it is not a straight-jacket. An opportunity for disappointed candidates to make representations may be sufficient to meet procedural-fairness concerns.

A police constable challenged his omission from a promotion list, alleging that the Commissioner’s points-based assessment system was unfair, illegal and unreasonable. He also challenged the Police Service Commission’s decision not to promote him. Before trial, the Commission revised his performance appraisal and promoted him retrospectively, but he continued the proceedings because the lawfulness of the system was of general importance.

Best J held that the system was unreasonable and contrary to natural justice. The Court of Appeal allowed the respondents’ appeal, holding that the appraisal defect had been corrected and that the points-based system was neither irrational nor inflexibly applied. The Board considered issues similar to those in Ganga and others v Commissioner of Police and Police Service Commission [2011] UKPC 28. The central issue was whether the promotion system and the Commission’s decision were unlawful.

Lord Dyson delivered the judgment of the Board.

1. Appeal dismissed. The Board upheld the Court of Appeal’s conclusion that the points-based promotion system was lawful.
2. The appellant’s submissions were rejected substantially for the reasons given in Ganga and others v Commissioner of Police and Police Service Commission [2011] UKPC 28. Although the system might be flawed in some respects, it was not irrational and did not entail procedural unfairness.
3. The promotion procedure was based on regulation 20 of the Police Service Commission Regulations. The opportunity for disappointed officers to make written representations under regulation 15(3) was an important means of correcting imbalances inherent in the system and was sufficient to meet the procedural-unfairness objection.
4. The evidence showed that the system was not a straight-jacket. The evidence that it was applied flexibly was unchallenged. Its evolution in response to exposed weaknesses, together with the reconsideration of individual cases after representations, supported that conclusion.
5. The Court of Appeal was also entitled to hold that the unfairness arising from the appellant’s performance appraisal, which covered only one month, had been corrected when the appraisal was revised and promotion was granted retrospectively. There was no basis to overturn the Court of Appeal’s conclusion on that issue or on any other aspect of the appeal.

• Privy Council ([2011] UKPC 25): dismissed the appeal.
• Court of Appeal of the Republic of Trinidad and Tobago: allowed the appeals of the Commissioner and the Commission. It held that the appraisal unfairness had been corrected and that the points-based system was neither irrational nor inflexibly applied.
• First instance (Best J): held that the points-based system was unreasonable and contrary to natural justice. The Commission later revised the appellant’s appraisal and promoted him retrospectively.