Oftentimes, the failures of the police force tend to be seen mainly in egregious lapses in serious crimes such as the inability to contact them via 911, the absence of transport to respond to armed robberies and murders, long delays in getting to crime scenes, reluctance to engage in hot pursuit and poor investigations, follow-up and prosecution.
There is another well-known failure which tends to be glossed over but which feeds into a deep reservoir of public cynicism about the police force and reduces the effectiveness of the vital relationship between the citizenry and law enforcers. Each day citizens make hundreds of reports to the police station from the mundane to the very serious. It might range on any given day from a neighbour’s animal eating up plants right up to a domestic violence murder. While the headline reports like murders would naturally be treated with the highest level of priority, there are dozens of other grievances which tend to be shunted aside to the detriment of what is meant to be a mutually reinforcing relationship between the citizens of the community and the police force.
It may well be that the police force is simply incapable of responding to the reports that face them each day because resources are limited. The force is understrength by several thousands. This likely means that stations do not have sufficient numbers to respond to all the complaints before them or the resources to take these to denouement. Yet, this shortcoming contributes significantly to how the community perceives the police force and whether it takes complaints of citizens as seriously as they take it.
Several weeks ago, no doubt at his wit’s end, Mr Madan Gopal chronicled in a letter to this newspaper his experience on what would be seen as a relatively minor report but no doubt one of great significance to him and those in his community. His experience after investing time and effort in pursuing his matter would leave even the most dedicated and understanding citizen with grave doubts about the effectiveness and commitment of the police.
On Saturday, November 21, 2015, around 1 p.m., two men broke through his back fence, apparently intending a burglary. They were spotted by a neighbour who raised an alarm and they fled. One of the intruders was positively identified. That same day, around 2 pm, Mr Gopal went to the Providence Police Station where a policeman took notes but said there was no detective available. After waiting an hour, Mr Gopal left and returned the next day at 11.30 am. A detective was available but there was no vehicle. Two hours later there was still no vehicle so Mr Gopal left after being promised by the detective that he would visit the premises. The detective never visited. Mr Gopal called for the detective on November 23 and 24 without luck and the messages he left were not responded to. Mr Gopal then journeyed to the Brickdam Police Station where he met A Division Commander Mr Clifton Hicken who referred him to a superintendent who in turn referred him to a deputy superintendent at the Ruimveldt Station who then referred him to another detective at the same Providence Police Station.
On returning to the Providence Station, Mr Gopal met the detective who journeyed to his home, inspected the point of entry and took a written statement. For months Mr Gopal heard nothing from the detective. When he called him in April this year, the detective said he had been transferred to the Grove Police Station two months earlier and was no longer responsible for the matter. Mr Gopaul surmised that nothing had been done on his case in the intervening months. Importantly, he had also not been contacted by the detective during this period, a sure sign that there was a complete lack of interest in the case.
Mr Gopal persisted and returned on April 19 to the Deputy Superintendent at the Ruimveldt Police Station who referred him to a third detective at the Providence Police Station. Mr Gopal finally met the detective on April 22 after several tries on the phone. This detective said that there was no car available but that he would have the night patrol apprehend the suspect and he would call Mr Gopal with the news. The detective never called. Mr Gopal then took the initiative to call the detective on May 2nd who said that he had been on the West Coast and that he would call him back with an update. He never did. On June 17, Mr Gopal again called the detective who said that the police had searched a week earlier for the suspect but had not found him but would go again on the weekend. Mr Gopal then left the country for a few weeks in September and on his return tried to contact the detective over several days by phone without luck. He finally got hold of the detective on September 25 who told Mr Gopal that he had been transferred to the Ruimveldt Station and was no longer responsible for Providence matters. The detective recommended that another sleuth from Providence be put on the case. This was apparently too much for Mr Gopal who ended his letter with a telling question:
“It is now nearly a year since the incident. In the interval the police, as far as I am aware, have done nothing, the criminal, unhampered, roams about and refines his skill, and I, bewildered, ponder my opening questions.
“Why do the police, despite constant prompting, fail to enforce the law even in a straightforward case? Are some people outside the protection of the law? At whose behest?”
Mr Gopal has been from pillar to post without any satisfaction. There is nothing else he can reasonably do under these circumstances and his experience is undoubtedly being replicated on a daily basis all across the country. The police force has to ensure that at the station level, complaints like those of Mr Gopal are acted upon and a credible explanation given otherwise it will lose the fight for public goodwill and support thereby making its law enforcement tasks all the more difficult.
