A High Court judge has described as “unfortunate” the failure by representatives of the Chief of Defence Staff (CDS) to appear before him in the judicial review claim of a Carenage man who hopes to enlist before he turns 25 in June.

On Monday, no one represented the CDS when Justice Frank Seepersad gave directions to progress Christopher Stanislaus’s lawsuit, which is challenging his removal from the recruitment process for enlistment because of an alleged “adverse report.”

Stanislaus previously received the go-ahead to pursue his judicial review claim and the judge gave orders preserving his enlistment date, since Stanislaus turns 25 on June 26, and will not be able to enlist after that.

These orders will remain in place until June 22, when Seepersad is expected to give his decision on June 22, days before Stanislaus's birthday on June 26.

In his lawsuit, Stanislaus said he was removed from the list of those selected because of an alleged adverse report against him.

He said he was chosen for basic training in the regiment on September 30, 2022, and told to attend a meeting on January 9 with his enrolment documents. It was at that meeting, he said, he was told there was an adverse report from the police service based on background investigations into him.

Stanlislaus said he was not shown the report and also questioned how it was possible, since he presented a certificate of character from the police and his fingerprints during the recruitment process, which “all came back clean.” He also said he had never been arrested or charged for anything.

On Monday, his attorney Arden Williams also referred the judge to an April 5 response from Defence Force headquarters to a freedom of information request for copies of any adverse or negative report on his client. The response said “after diligent searches the requested document does not exist.”

Stanislaus is seeking several declarations as well as compensation for the loss of future earnings, amounting to $1.7 million, based on his legitimate expectation that he would be enlisted.

That sum does not include other allowances paid to all members of the Defence Force.

“It is my contention that I have suffered a fate that is unfair. There is nothing criminal known against me and I know this to be true.”

His application said he went to the expense of buying all the items he needed for the recruitment possess.

Stanislaus also said because he was “wrongfully” removed from the process, he has lost out on pay and emoluments as a private, and he had a legitimate expectation that he would have been part of the Defence Force at least until the age of 45, the compulsory run-out age for privates.

“This means that I will be losing out on 20 years’ worth of pay and emoluments. On the salary alone this equates to $ 1,745,040 not inclusive of other allowances such as ration and rent allowance paid to all members of the force," he said.

Stanislaus is also represented by attorney Mariah Ramrattan.

The post Judge to rule on lawsuit against defence force chief over