A police recruit who was not allowed to take her oath and told to leave the Police Academy has been permitted by the High Court to challenge the Police Commissioner’s decision.

Aviel Williams was granted leave by Justice Joan Charles on October 18 to advance her lawsuit against the commissioner. The judge has also put on hold the commissioner’s decision to remove Williams from the list of recruits to be sworn in as a police officer and continue her training.

Williams is seeking several declarations that her removal from the list of trainees who were to be sworn in as police officers on October 14 was unlawful, in contravention of her constitutional rights and unreasonable, irrational and unfair.

The matter will come up on November 13, for case management.

In her lawsuit, Williams said she was not told why she was removed from the line of trainees and not allowed to take her oath.

She said she was directed to “leave the Academy” and “proceed on leave.”

Williams said she applied to the police service in 2019 and successfully completed the written, polygraph, and psychological examinations as well as the drug test, agility test, medical examination and background investigation.

She was interviewed on July 5, and told to attend an orientation session where she will receive her first contract.

She began inducting training and continued the recruitment process, successfully completing the various modules. She said on October 11, she completed the physical and defensive tactics examinations and was told that trainees who were successful in both the academic and police skills portion of the training would be sworn in on October 14.

However, during a briefing, she was told to report to the faculty office at the Police Academy, St James and was not allowed to take the oath. She said all she was told was that she would not be sworn in as there was an issue with her file which was by the commissioner for review.

She was then told to change out of uniform and proceed on “administrative” leave.

She tried to get information from the police service for her removal from training and on October 16, Williams was asked to report to the faculty office which she did.

She was told there was an “error in communication” but that the instructors were still waiting on the commissioner.

“I was not told of the information they are waiting or on the specific issue to be resolved with my file.” She was also told she could not take part in firearm training because she was not sworn in.”

With no additional information given to her, she was told to return two days later which she did on October 18 and again told to return on October 21.

“I have not, as at the time of swearing to this affidavit received any further information regarding my status.

“I am still not allowed to train. My batch with each passing day are moving closer to completion whilst I remain uncertain of my status.

“Being sworn in establishes you as a police officer within the TT Police Service.

“You are then considered to be a constable.

“It