Editorial | Well done, Dr Blake

The police chief, Kevin Blake, didn’t say if a specific incident caused him to raise the rank of officers, to at least inspector, who can authorise the seizure of motor vehicles for traffic offences.

Dr Blake’s move, however, should be applauded. For it suggests a wish for greater accountability, as well as a move against petty corruption in the constabulary. It, at the same time, could save taxpayers money and motorists a lot of what, often, is unnecessary costs and irritation.

Perhaps the Transport Authority, the regulatory body for public passenger vehicles, should follow suit by similarly hiking the supervisory rank of its inspectors authorised to take buses and taxis off the roads, or at least making it known who is allowed to do so. We appreciate that, at this time, that would be an administrative decision, rather than something specifically grounded in the Transport Authority Act.

Under the Road Traffic Act, vehicles can be removed from the road if they are not appropriately registered or licensed, or certified as roadworthy by the relevant agencies.

They can also suffer the fate if registration plates or licence decals are not affixed, are not in designated parking areas or are in some way obstructed.

Until last week, a police sergeant could authorise such seizures, putting in train a multi-step, relatively expensive, and mostly frustrating process for motorists to retrieve their vehicles.

This sometimes involves reporting the incident to a police station where documentation is provided for a payment of fees at the tax office for the infringement (if it is not a court matter) as well as for the replacement of the offending plates or decals, if these are the presumed culprits.

The motorists then go to the pound where the vehicle is being held to collect bills for the tow truck that hauled the vehicle, and the storage fee for the time it has been impounded. In non-court matters, the receipts for those bills are taken back to the pound for the vehicle to be released.

It has long been suspected that vehicle seizures were a source of petty corruption by cops who colluded with tow truck operators in removals, at times, for the most innocuous violations.

For instance, vehicles have been known to be seized for the minutest, almost invisible crimps in licence decals that were seemingly undetectable to the naked eye.

At times, too, the behaviour of officers appeared to be just an officious and arbitrary exercise of power.

LEGAL CHALLENGES

Mostly, motorists, even when they believe they have been wronged, just suck up the costs, frustration and lost time that come with having their vehicles seized. Legal challenges are more expensive, far longer and without any certainty of success.

Occasionally, however, motorists do challenge – and win. Eventually!

In 2009 Granville Naulty’s vehicle was seized by the police and Transport Authority inspectors, who claimed that it was unlicensed and was being illegally operated as a public passenger vehicle (PPV). In 2011, two years after he was acquitted of the offences, Mr Naulty sued for malicious prosecution and loss of income.

He did not get the millions sought because he couldn’t prove his claimed losses. But in May of this year a court awarded him J$850,000.

In October 2021, though, a court awarded Ronald Thompson J$8.5 million and 21 months of interest for the police seizure and impounding of his vehicle, because, according to court arguments, he declined to pay a J$18,000 wrecker (tow truck) fee.

In 2017, Trecia Miller gained a J$7.3 million judgment against the government because her registered PPV vehicle was seized by the Transport Authority, allegedly after it collided with a TA vehicle.

In the Force Orders (a kind of internal gazette) announcing the changed seizure policy, Commissioner Blake said issuing traffic tickets were usually sufficient for most of the breaches for which vehicles were seized.

“...When a decision is made for seizure, the exposure of persons, property and businesses to serious harm/loss must be considered,” the Force Orders noted.

Which is sensible.

There is now the question of the TA and who has authority in vehicle seizures.

The powers of that agency’s inspectors, who often work in concert with the police, are limited to public passenger vehicles, whose drivers are notorious for breaching traffic and regulatory rules. This group poses special challenges.

But there are also complaints – which perhaps raise questions about training – that TA inspectors, who have the power under the Transport Authority Act to seize vehicles, appear insufficiently versed in de-escalating contentious events.

It is not clear how the TA delegates seizure authority. But as the police have now done, the TA should publicly declare which supervisory ranks are authorised to take critical actions, especially in cases where volatile events could explode.

For instance, in a circumstance of the police and the TA working together, could a Transport Authority inspector override a decision by an Inspector of Police and insist on the seizure of a PPV?