Justice Navindra Singh has denied behaving in an “irate or aggressive” manner towards the Queen’s College (QC) Vice Principal during a visit to the school and has requested that School’s Board of Governors review footage from a nearby security camera to determine the veracity of what occurred.
“…I will stand by that footage. Please give yourself and the public the opportunity to examine for yourselves and themselves by body language since you are apparently no longer looking for an attempted physical assault,” Justice Singh wrote in a response to the Chairman of the Queen’s College Board of Governors Marcel Gaskin on allegations levelled against him.
In his response, dated November 17, 2022 and seen by Stabroek News, the judge also accuses the Principal and Deputy Principal of making “false allegations” against him with a view of derailing the investigation into a complaint concerning his daughter, who was allegedly assaulted during an altercation with another student.
Among the allegations levelled against the judge is that he visited the school in the presence of two police officers from the Major Crimes Unit on November 11, 2022.
However, in the response seen by this newspaper the judge denied doing so.
He noted that he was informed of a physical altercation between his daughter and another student on October 27, 2022 and that they were subsequently made to apologise to each other.
The judge said he called the Principal to enquire about the incident and opined that he did not think it was proper to have a victim apologise. He said the Principal informed him that there were no victims and that in her opinion the two children were involved in a scuffle despite the fact that she acknowledged to his daughter that she knew she was simply “defending” herself.
He said he enquired whether the Principal interviewed any witnesses and she said no and that as far as she was concerned the matter was closed. “I told her that what happened constituted an assault on my child which is a crime and I am not satisfied with the way it was dealt with, especially in the absence of any of the parents. She told me my comment was noted. I then informed her that in the circumstances I was going to report the matter to the police for investigation. She told me that was noted. I also told her that I felt that her handling of the matter was incompetent and that she should be removed as Principal. That was the end of the telephone call,” he related.
Justice Singh said he reported the matter to the Alberttown Police Sta-tion’s Criminal Investigation Department that same evening and he was informed by the police that there was a process through which the Ministry of Education had to be engaged and he would be updated as the matter progressed.
According to the judge, on November 10, 2022, at 16:42 hrs, he was contacted by Assistant Commissioner of Police (ACP) Simon McBean, who told him that a meeting had been scheduled through the Ministry of Education to be held at Queen’s College, where the police, the parents of the other student and he would meet with the Principal concerning his report. He said he was told that he should get there by 11:15 hrs.
The judge said upon his arrival at QC at the fixed time he I saw the Principal outside of her office talking to some persons. He said he waited until she was done and then told her that he was there for the meeting. However, she indicated that she did not know what meeting he was referring to and he said he told her he was told that he would be meeting with her and the police.
With the Principal maintaining that she was unaware of such a meeting, the judge said he called ACP McBean, who told him that the meeting was on and he would call to locate the police.
Within two minutes, he noted, he saw a female rank enter the area and take a seat on a bench nearby and shortly thereafter he saw Superintendent Mitchell Caesar enter the area. He said Superintendent Caesar introduced the female rank as Corporal Bailey from the Juvenile section.
About 10 minutes afterward, the judge said a woman, later identified as the Deputy Principal, approached and told him that the Principal would not be able to speak with him since she did not have any appointment booked with him. He said he then directed her attention to Superintendent Caesar by pointing to him.
The judge said Superintendent Caesar then introduced himself and Corporal Bailey to her and told her that they were there for a meeting with the Principal. However, the Deputy Principal stated that the Principal did not have an appointment booked and so she didn’t know what the meeting was about.
He noted that Corporal Bailey told her that it was concerning a report by a parent and she replied that that matter was resolved, logged and sent to the Ministry by the Principal. “I then said to the Deputy Principal that if the Principal didn’t know why we were there then how could she say that the matter had been resolved. I further said to her that she had to be lying when she said that the Principal did not know why we were there,” he wrote.
Justice Singh said the Deputy Principal, without even turning to look at him, said that she was not talking to him and was instead talking to the policewoman. “She then told the policewoman that the matter was resolved with the parent. I then said can I ask you which parent. She ignored me and I asked the question again, further stating that if it is the issue with my daughter, I am the parent and it was not resolved with me. She again ignored me and I said, louder, why can’t you answer me. The Deputy Principal then turned and walked away and went into the staff room,” he added.
The judge said he waited there for about another 10 minutes since Superintendent Caesar informed him that he was going to contact the Ministry of Education. He noted that no one came to speak with them again during that time and Superintendent Caesar then told him that there was nothing more that he could do and they then left separately.
“I did not become irate at any time. I did not act or speak in a manner that can be characterised as demonstrating great anger. I did speak louder when the Deputy Principal ignored me when I queried whether she was referring to me as the parent with whom the matter was resolved.
“I did suggest to the Deputy Principal that her statement that the Principal did not know why we were there followed by her statement, less than 20 seconds later, that the matter was resolved, although no one had told her during that time why we were there, had to be a lie. There is no other way to characterise those inconsistent statements.
“I never advanced to her. I remained standing in the same position that I was in when she came to us for the entire time that she was there,” he said, while maintaining that neither of the two police officers ever restrained him. “Neither of the police officers had any need to restrain me. I did not move from the position I was in from the time the Deputy Principal approached us to when she walked away.”
In response to a query about his body language during the encounter, Justice Singh said he “did not exhibit any behaviour that can be characterised as aggressive” and that he “had absolutely no inclination to assault anyone.”
“I was confident that the police would deal with the matter and in fact did not seek to intervene in their investigation. I simply tried to query two statements made by the Deputy Principal to verify whether she was referencing my complaint and whether she was alleging that the matter was resolved with me,” he said, while adding that he could not believe that those questions can be deemed aggressive.
The judge also noted that he saw at least one CCTV camera in the area that was aimed at the very location where the parties were. “As the Board of Governors you certainly must have the authority to access the CCTV footage for that date and time and I will stand by that footage.”
Meanwhile, Justice Singh pointed to contradictions in accounts of the encounter given by the Principal and Deputy Principal and suggested that the “false allegations” were levelled against him to derail the investigation into his daughter’s complaint and to detract from the fact that the Principal refused to entertain a meeting at her office concerning the incident although that meeting was organised by the Ministry of Education.
“Assuming that the Principal was not informed of the meeting, which is highly unlikely and which the [Ministry of Education] can verify, why would she refuse to meet with members of the Guyana Police Force, at the very least to enquire why law enforcement was visiting her school,” he added before imploring the Board of Governors to investigate the Principal’s and Deputy Principal’s handling of complaints concerning the student who was involved in the altercation with his daughter.
“The Principal and the Deputy Principal have defamed my character by reporting to the Ministry that I physically attempted to hit the Deputy Principal, which report was made four days after the alleged incident but was then immediately placed on the worldwide web for public consumption before any investigation could have been conducted or I was given an opportunity to answer the allegation but now the allegation is that the Deputy Principal interpreted my body language to show that I wished to physically assault her, body language which she has opted not to describe.
“The Deputy Principal essentially purports to have read my mind and became the predictor of doom,” he added.
