The Tribune

By PAVEL BAILEY

Tribune Staff Reporter

pbailey@tribunemedia.net

A lawyer representing police officers has said they are preparing to take their grievances to the Commissioner of Police over forced early retirement and denied vacation entitlements.

This follows a consultation on Friday at Union Baptist Church, where officers raised concerns about being denied benefits they believe they are entitled to under the law.

Meanwhile, the Police Staff Association has criticised comments made by the attorney, who claimed the association was “lagging” in advocating for officers’ rights.

Romona Farquharson-Seymour, in an interview with The Tribune on Sunday, said she met with officers to discuss employment issues, including forced retirement, gratuity, and vacation time.

She said officers were looking to take legal action over their entitlements, particularly those concerning early retirement and the denial of five weeks’ vacation.

She questioned how the force determines who qualifies for five weeks of vacation, suggesting that the court ruling in the case of Kelsey Monroe against the Commissioner of Police indicates that general orders, not force policies, should determine eligibility. The ruling found that vacation entitlement is based on salary, meaning that many officers who met the requirement had not received what they were owed. However, the Court of Appeal declined to extend Monroe’s ruling to other officers, leaving the issue unresolved.

Mrs Farquharson-Seymour stressed the importance of officers working together, noting that many had assumed the ruling in Monroe’s case would automatically apply to them. She said officers now realise they need to mount a collective effort to push for change.

She added that many officers were hesitant to speak out due to fears of victimisation, but attitudes were shifting as more officers recognised they were being denied benefits to which they were legally entitled.

Mrs Farquharson-Seymour also highlighted concerns over forced retirement, saying some officers are being made to retire before reaching 25 years of service. She argued that many of these dismissals are based on a repealed 1960 Act rather than the 2009 Act, which allows officers to serve up to 30 years or until the age of 55, whichever comes first. She questioned why some officers were allowed to work their full term while others were forced out early, calling it a disparity that needed to be addressed.

She said the consultation was well attended, with officers from the Family Islands joining virtually. Another session is planned after the Easter break.

The Police Staff Association issued a statement on the day of the consultation, rejecting claims that it had been slow to act. The association said it had already filed a representative action before the Supreme Court, with a hearing set for February 9–13, 2026. The association also pushed back against the suggestion that officers had not received assistance, stating that it had been actively working on their behalf.

Mrs Farquharson-Seymour, however, maintained that some officers had told her they did not receive help from the association. She said her only goal was to act in the best interest of officers, arguing that they had been mistreated for years. Regardless of the association’s stance, she said she would continue to represent officers who wished to take legal action.