A High Court judge has once again ruled that the Trinidad and Tobago Police Service’s (TTPS) tattoo policy for recruits is unconstitutional, awarding $300,000 in damages to a recruit who was disqualified because of his tattoos.
Justice Westmin James delivered the ruling in favor of Daawuud Mohammed, who had been unlawfully disqualified from joining the police force due to his tattoos. In his judgment, Justice James stated that the TTPS policy violated Mohammed’s rights to equality before the law, equality of treatment, and freedom of expression.
Mohammed, who had passed all stages of the recruitment process, was barred from proceeding with his application in June 2023 due to tattoos on his right bicep and left triceps. The tattoos featured his daughter’s name and a Quranic verse. Despite undergoing tattoo removal procedures upon advice, Mohammed was still denied entry because the tattoos were not fully removed in time. It was only after legal action was taken that he was allowed to proceed with his application and eventually began training in July 2024.
Justice James noted that Mohammed’s case mirrored a previous one involving another recruit who was denied entry because of a ninja star tattoo. In that case, Justice Frank Seepersad ruled that the TTPS tattoo policy, in effect since 2011, was discriminatory and illegal. James highlighted that, despite Seepersad’s ruling, the State did not take corrective action and continued to apply the unconstitutional policy against Mohammed.
“No corrective action was taken to address his situation in light of the court’s ruling,” James said. “It was only after this claim was filed that the claimant was finally permitted to complete his final interview and commence training in July 2024—nearly a year after he was initially barred.”
The judge also pointed out that the TTPS did not admit liability in the case, and he criticized the police force for failing to amend its recruitment procedures in the wake of the court’s earlier decision.
“There is no reasonable, rational, or credible justification for this policy,” James declared. “The tattoo policy constitutes an arbitrary exercise of power, unfairly discriminates against individuals with tattoos, and creates an unjustifiable administrative barrier to employment in the TTPS.”
The judge also noted that the TTPS had implemented a 2021 policy prohibiting tattoos on recruits’ hands or any visible tattoos beyond the sleeve cuff of their uniform shirts. Mohammed’s tattoos would have been covered by his uniform, further highlighting the arbitrary nature of the policy. Additionally, serving officers are allowed to have tattoos, but recruits are subject to stricter regulations.
James emphasized that the right to freedom of expression includes the freedom to shape one’s identity, and tattoos are a recognized form of self-expression. He stated that the TTPS policy unlawfully restricted Mohammed’s right to express himself, and the State had failed to justify the policy as necessary for maintaining the integrity of the police service.
In his ruling, James awarded damages totaling $300,000, broken down into $25,000 for loss of opportunity, $125,000 for distress and inconvenience, and $150,000 in vindicatory damages to acknowledge the breach of Mohammed’s constitutional rights.
“This case concerns a longstanding policy, in place since before 2011, that was maintained by the TTPS despite being declared unconstitutional for violating four constitutional rights,” James said. “The State’s decision to continue defending this case, despite a prior judicial declaration of unconstitutionality and without offering any justification for the policy’s enforcement, underscores the need for such an award.”
James further condemned the TTPS’s tattoo policy, calling it arbitrary, unfair, and discriminatory. He also pointed out the broader societal implications, saying the policy sends a message of exclusion and non-acceptance. By upholding discriminatory practices based on physical appearance, the TTPS risks alienating potential recruits and undermining public trust in law enforcement.
Mohammed’s legal team included Anand Ramlogan, SC, Kent Samlal, Jared Jagroo, Natasha Bisram, and Asha Ramlal. The State was represented by Coreen Findley and Kadine Matthew.
Related topics: