Shantel Berry v Commissioner of Police
| Jurisdiction | Belize |
| Judge | Madam Justice Sonya Young |
| Judgment Date | 29 January 2021 |
| Court | Supreme Court (Belize) |
| Docket Number | CLAIM NO. 493 of 2019 |
| Date | 29 January 2021 |
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF BELIZE, A.D. 2020
the Honourable Madam Justice Sonya Young
CLAIM NO. 493 of 2019
CLAIM NO. 646 of 2019
Mr. Anthony Sylvestre and Ms. Leslie D. Mendez for the Claimants.
Mrs. Samantha Matute-Tucker for the Defendants.
KEYWORDS: Constitutional Law — Police Standing Orders — Policy — Directive — Dreadlocks — Female Police Officer — Freedom of Religion — Freedom of Expression — Discrimination
In 2016, the young black women at South Africa's Pretoria Girls High School were advised to “discipline” their hair by relaxing it. Similarly, Shantel Berry and Aleeya Wade, two (2) female police officers of African descent, had been formally warned to remove their dreadlocks in order to conform to the Police Regulations. By refusing to comply, they now face disciplinary action.
Ms. Berry, a twenty-four year old woman, began growing her locks at age seventeen (17). It was, for her, the first step towards adherence to the Rastafarian faith of which her family members were followers. When she entered the National Police Training Academy in August 2015, she was advised then to remove her dreadlocks and she complied.
She was also given basic training on the Police Standing Orders, which guides an officer's behavior and conduct including grooming. During training, she was never specifically told that these regulations prohibited police officers from wearing locks nor did she raise any concern in relation to the prohibitions which were contained therein.
However, she eventually realized that there were other women police officers who wore dreadlocks in the force and so she regrew her own. By a memorandum dated the 13 th February, 2018 and addressed to Regional Divisional, Formation Branch and Unit Commanders of Police Department, the Professional Standards Branch reminded police personnel countrywide about compliance with Regulation 7 of Chapter 4 of the Police Standing Orders, which concerns hair, dress and jewelry worn by police officers whilst on duty.
Around August, 2018, Ms. Berry was verbally directed to remove her dreadlocks as they breached the said Regulation. She did not comply. In January of 2019, she was given a directive by her Station Manager to remove her hairstyle. She did not comply. She received a warning letter from her Station Manager on the 28 th January, 2019 but she refused to remove her hairstyle. In March, 2019, the Commissioner of Police, Mr. Chester Williams delivered a speech at the Police Women's Conference held for Women's Month. There he addressed the issue of officers wearing locks. Ms. Berry was present. On the 28 th March, 2019, she was again verbally directed to remove her dreadlocks. She did not comply.
Subsequently, on the 23 rd April, 2019, she was served with a notice of disciplinary proceedings. She was charged with willfully disobeying a “ lawful command” contrary to section 24(4) (bb) of the Police Act, Chapter 138. She responded by a letter from an Attorney outlining the perceived unconstitutionality of the directive and the proposed proper interpretation of the particular section of the Standing Orders. There was no response and she remains charged.
Aleeya Wade had begun wearing dreadlocks from the age of twenty-two. She had by then already entered the Police Force. She is now on filing this claim, twenty-five years old. She says she chose to do this in celebration of her hair's natural afro texture, to fortify her sense of self and to resist the notion that hair like hers was unprofessional, unmanageable or “bad hair.”
She too received the memorandum dated the 13 th February, 2018 and was verbally directed to remove her locks around August, 2018. In March, 2019, she was again given a directive to remove her hairstyle on or before the 1 st April, 2019. She refused and was served with a notice of disciplinary proceedings just as Ms. Berry had been. She too has approached the Court in aid.
Both officers seek declarations that Regulation 7 and the policy restricting dreadlocks are inconsistent with their constitutional right to freedom of conscience, expression and non-discrimination and the disciplinary proceedings instituted against them is therefore unlawful. They wish to strike down Regulation 7 in this regard and stay the disciplinary proceedings.
In his Defence, the Commissioner of Police relies on the Standing Orders. He says that the women were asked to remove their dreadlocks because of the possibility of not being able to identify them as police officers. More importantly, the hairstyle posed a work hazard if they were to engage in physical altercations with others.
Ms. Berry and Ms. Wade are two (2) of seven (7) female police officers who have been so charged. They have brought separate claims which have been heard together as it seemed the most reasonable and efficient thing to do. In the meantime, the disciplinary proceedings have been suspended.
I wish to take this opportunity to thank Counsel on both sides who, appreciating the true nature of this matter, agree to a statement of facts and issues thereby circumventing the need for a lengthy trial. The matter was eventually overtaken by the Covid 19 pandemic and further delayed by the exigencies of this job.
Regulation 7 of the Police Standing Orders, Service Regulations Chapter 4 of the Police Act Cap:
-
Hair (i) ……..
-
(ii) Female officers when in uniform will wear their hair dressed up above the collar and secured in place with ribbon or clips of a dark blue or black material. No elaborate head decorations or attachment of hairpieces or braids may be worn when on duty whether in uniform or normal duty in plain clothes. Facial cosmetics may be worn in moderation.
Section 11.-(1) Except with his own consent, a person shall not be hindered in the enjoyment of his freedom of conscience, including freedom of thought and of religion, freedom to change his religion or belief and freedom, either alone or in community with others, and both in public and in private, to manifest and propagate his religion or belief in worship, teaching, practice and observance.
(5) Nothing contained in or done under the authority of any law shall be held to be inconsistent with or in contravention of this section to the extent that the law in question makes provision which is reasonably required—
Section 12.-(1) Except with his own consent, a person shall not be hindered in the enjoyment of his freedom of expression, including freedom to hold opinions without interference, freedom to receive ideas and information without interference, freedom to communicate ideas and information without interference (whether the communication be to the public generally or to any person or class of persons) and freedom from interference with his correspondence.
(2) Nothing contained in or done under the authority of any law shall be held to be inconsistent with or in contravention of this section to the extent that the law in question makes reasonable provision—
-
(a) in the interests of defence, public safety, public order, public morality or public health;
-
(b) for the purpose of protecting the rights and freedoms of other persons, including the right to observe and practice any religion without the unsolicited intervention of members of any other religion; or
-
(c) for the purpose of regulating educational institutions in the interest of the persons who receive or may receive instruction in them.
-
(d) that is required in the interests of defence, public safety, public order, public morality or public health;
-
(e) that is required for the purpose of protecting the reputations, rights and freedoms of other persons or the private lives of persons concerned in legal proceedings, preventing the disclosure of information received in confidence, maintaining the authority and independence of the courts or regulating the administration or the technical operation of telephone, telegraphy, posts, wireless broadcasting, television or other means of communication, public exhibitions or public entertainments; Or
-
(f) that imposes restrictions on officers in the public service that are required for the proper performance of their functions.
The issues as agreed by the parties are as follows:
-
1. Whether the interpretation and application of Regulation 7(ii) of the Belize Police Standing Orders, Service Regulations, and Chapter 4 as prohibiting women police officer from wearing dreadlocks is a restriction on the Claimant's exercise of her constitutional rights as guaranteed by sections 11, 12 and 16 of the Constitution.
-
2. Whether the directive to remove the dreadlocks breaches the Claimant's constitutional rights as guaranteed by sections 11, 12 and 16 of the Constitution.
-
3. Whether Regulation 7(ii) is unconstitutional, null and void to the extent that it prevents the Claimant from wearing her hair in dreadlock in breach of the Claimant's constitutional rights as guaranteed by sections 11, 12 and 16 of the Constitution.
-
4. Whether the consequent disciplinary proceedings are unlawful, null and void.
-
5. Whether the Claimant is entitled to the reliefs sought.”
The Court however, prefers the following which are for the most part as stated by Counsel for the Defendants in her submissions:
-
1. Whether Regulation 7(ii) of the Belize Police Standing Orders, Service Regulations, Chapter 4 is unconstitutional
-
2. Whether the interpretation of Regulation 7(ii) by and the directive and policy of the Police Department prohibiting officers from wearing dreadlocks breaches the Claimant's constitutional rights as guaranteed by...
To continue reading
Request your trial