News July 28 2026

Former constable loses JCF fight - Privy Council tosses appeal for reinstatement

Updated 6 hours ago 3 min read

Loading article...

Former recruits marching in unison at a Jamaica Constabulary Force passing out parade and awards ceremony. Former recruits marching in unison at a Jamaica Constabulary Force passing out parade and awards ceremony.

Former police Constable Joel Lewis was left disappointed after the Privy Council ruled that his challenge to the Jamaica Constabulary Force’s refusal to re-enlist him three years ago raised no arguable point of law.

The Judicial Committee of the Privy Council, in a decision last month, refused Lewis’ permission to appeal, ending his attempt to overturn the decision that prevented him from pursuing judicial review of his discharge from the Jamaica Constabulary Force (JCF).

The panel – comprising Lord Briggs, Lord Stephens and Lady Rose – ruled that permission to appeal should be refused because the application did not raise an arguable point of law.

Lewis had argued in the Court of Appeal through his attorney, Hugh Wildman, that the decision to discharge him was unlawful because there was no evidence that the commissioner of police had personally taken any step to remove him from the force.

He submitted that under the Constabulary Force Act, the administrative power to refuse re-enlistment rested with the commissioner of police unless that authority had been properly delegated.

Wildman further contended that Superintendent Clifford Chambers, who was named as the first respondent, had no authority to make the decision and had effectively usurped the commissioner’s power.

The attorney also argued that Lewis was not given any reason for his discharge, despite being entitled to know the basis for the decision. He relied on previous authorities, including Glenroy Clarke v Commissioner of Police, to support the argument that public authorities must act within their legal powers and follow fair procedures.

Wildman further relied on Regulation 37 of the Police Service Regulations, arguing that a member of the force cannot be dismissed or punished for a criminal matter for which he has been acquitted, unless the action relates to separate conduct arising from the matter.

However, Kristina Jones, instructed by the director of state proceedings, argued that Chambers was not the person who made the decision to discharge Lewis. She maintained that Chambers acted on the instructions of the commissioner of police and was only communicating the decision.

Jones also relied on the same case, arguing that an officer who communicates the commissioner’s decision does not become the decision-maker and is not the proper party to be challenged. She maintained that her client was not the proper party to the claim and that the Supreme Court was correct in not granting permission for the judicial review.

The Court of Appeal, in its ruling in 2025, had dismissed the appeal after concluding that it had no merit.

The appellate judges found that there was no evidence Chambers was the decision-maker

The court stated that Chambers, by communicating the decision of the commissioner of police, was “merely a conduit” and that Lewis had not provided any authority to show that this made him the proper respondent in the claim.

The dispute arose after Lewis was arrested in June 2018 while travelling to the Caribbean Maritime University, where he was pursuing studies. He was charged with uttering a forged motor vehicle certificate of title and receiving a motor vehicle, knowing it to have been stolen.

Lewis was later freed by the St Catherine Parish Court after the prosecution offered no evidence against him.

Lewis said that on July 27, 2022, he and his attorney at the time attended a meeting with the commissioner of police, who told him that if the 2018 charges were the only matters against him, he had nothing to worry about.

However, on September 7, 2022, Lewis received a letter under the hand of Superintendent Chambers informing him that he had been discharged from the JCF.

Lewis subsequently challenged the decision in the Supreme Court, through an application for leave to apply to the Judicial Review Court to quash a decision of the Police High Command refusing to re-enlist him in the force.

He contends that his dismissal was unlawful and that he remained a member of the force.

tanesha.mundle@gleanerjm.com