By FRANCIS JOSEPH
A Police officer who sustained gunshot injuries during a police exercise, has lost his case for compensation before the High Court.
Justice Westmin James dismissed the case against PC Andile Ansar Mohammed but ordered no costs in the matter. PC Mohammed had sued the Attorney General for damages.
The Case
This claim arose from injuries sustained by PC Andile Ansar Mohammed, during the execution of a search warrant for firearms and ammunition at premises located at John Street, Chaguanas, on the 7th of October 2020. During the course of the operation, police officers came under gunfire from the occupants of the premises.
In the ensuing exchange of gunfire, PC Mohammed sustained a gunshot wound to his right lower leg, resulting in permanent physical impairment.
By Statement of Case filed on the 4th of October 2024, PC Mohammed, claimed damages for negligence and employer’s liability against the AG for injuries sustained during the course of his employment on the 7th of October 2020. He alleged that while attached to the Robbery Unit, he was instructed to assist the Gang Unit, a unit for which he was not specifically trained, in executing a search warrant for arms and ammunition at certain premises in Chaguanas.
During the operation, an exchange of gunfire occurred, and PC Mohammed sustained a gunshot wound to his right lower leg. He contended that the AG failed to provide a safe system of work, adequate specialized training, and necessary Personal Protective Equipment (“PPE”) such as ballistic shin guards and knee pads. He sought the following relief:
PC Mohammed claimed damages as a result of the said accident which occurred which was caused by the negligence of, and/or breach of statutory duty. He also claimed special damages, general damages for pain and suffering and loss of amenities and for loss of earning capacity and/or loss of earnings and/or loss of future earnings and/or loss of promotion and for any future surgery and future medical care required.
The AG filed a defence on the 23rd of June 2025, in which he denied liability, asserting that the execution of a search warrant for arms and ammunition was a “standard operation” that any police officer, regardless of their specific unit, is expected to handle.
He contended that PC Mohammed was provided with standard-issue PPE, specifically a bulletproof vest, which is the primary form of protection required for such exercises. The Defence argued that specialized tactical gear like shin guards and helmets are only issued to specific tactical units (such as the Guard and Emergency Branch) and were not required for the operation PC Mohammed participated in.
The AG further maintained that a proper operational briefing was conducted by Acting Sergeant Cielto at the Chaguanas Police Station before the raid, covering safety measures and professional integrity. He argued that PC Mohammed’s injury was a result of the inherent risks associated with policing, which he accepted upon choosing his career. Additionally, the AG claimed that PC Mohammed could have sought compensation through the Protective Services Compensation Act but voluntarily withdrew his application.
In his judgment, Justice James said, “Before concluding, the court considers it appropriate to observe that Parliament has established a statutory compensation regime under the Protective Services Compensation Act Chapter 23:60 for members of the protective services who sustain injuries arising out of and in the course of their employment.
“The evidence disclosed that the claimant previously made an application under that statutory scheme but subsequently withdrew it. This judgment expresses no opinion regarding the claimant’s eligibility for, or entitlement to, any compensation available under that Act, those matters falling within the statutory framework established by Parliament.
“The dismissal of this claim should not be understood as diminishing the seriousness of the injuries suffered by the claimant or the valuable public service rendered by police officers generally. The court’s decision reflects only its conclusion that the legal requirements for establishing negligence have not been satisfied on the evidence before it.”
