Офицер женской тюрьмы категорически опровергла обвинения в сексуальных домогательствах к бывшей заключенной

A female prison officer has categorically denied allegations that she sexually harassed or abused former prisoner Nadia Pooran. The officer insisted that prison procedures would have made some of the alleged encounters impossible. Prisons officer I Katyann Grant, who had served in the Prison Service for 17 years at the time, rejected the allegations in a sworn affidavit filed in the High Court on December 14, 2022, on behalf of the Attorney General. The affidavit formed part of the State’s response to constitutional proceedings brought by Pooran over her treatment while incarcerated, including her classification as a convicted prisoner while an appeal against her sentence was pending. Grant said she had been attached to the Women’s Prison at Golden Grove, Arouca, for approximately 13 years, between 2005 and 2016, before being transferred to the Eastern Correctional Rehabilitation Centre from 2016 to 2019. She later returned to the Women’s Prison. She said Pooran was already incarcerated in the Remand section when she entered the Prison Service. She stated that, as a young officer, her interaction with Pooran was limited because she was not permitted to conduct escorts or guard prisoners by herself and was always accompanied by a more senior officer in the Remand section. Grant said that shortly after she began working at the prison, Pooran claimed the two women knew each other before her incarceration. “When I started my service at the Women’s Prison, the Claimant did make allegations that I was her girlfriend on the outside of the prison and that I used to dance in the club with her,” Grant stated. She said she was summoned by her supervisor, identified as Ms Brooks, to answer the allegation, which she “vehemently denied”. According to Grant, Pooran was verbally reprimanded and she was advised to limit her interaction and conversations with the inmate. Grant further stated that throughout her 17 years in the Prison Service, no allegations of sexual abuse had been made against her apart from the allegations arising in Pooran’s case. Heterosexual relationship Responding directly to allegations contained in Pooran’s affidavit, Grant said she was unaware of any sexual abuse allegation being made against her or another prison officer. She also said she knew of no allegation by Pooran involving the sexual abuse of another inmate. Grant explained that her previous surname was Blackie-Henry before she got married and changed her name in 2012. She confirmed that she had, depending on postings by senior officers, worked in the Convicted section while Pooran was there. However, Grant said the physical configuration and staffing of that section meant prisoners and officers were visible. She said between one and four officers could be assigned to each shift, and the Convicted section consisted of a dormitory in which all inmates’ beds were visible, while the prison officer was stationed in an open space outside the dormitory, separated by bars and gates. “There is no secluded area in that convicted section. The actions of all inmates and officers are visible at all times,” she stated. No sexual advances Grant “categorically” denied ever harassing or flirting with Pooran and said she was, and remained, a married woman in a heterosexual relationship. She also disputed claims concerning prisoners being summoned to perform work for officers. Grant explained that inmates sentenced to hard labour were assigned duties as part of the conditions for remission, while other inmates could request to perform such work. She said a monthly labour list was prepared by a prisons officer II or more senior officer, with inmates assigned specific duties. Prisoners sentenced to hard labour were also assessed by a Prison Medical Officer to determine their fitness to perform the work, Grant said. “No officer has the authority to summons an inmate whenever they want,” she stated. Grant said movement within the prison was controlled through a “body slip” recording the inmate’s name, classification, time and destination. A prisons officer II was required to approve the slip before the inmate could be moved. She therefore rejected the suggestion that an officer could simply summon or move Pooran without authorisation. Grant further denied verbally or physically abusing Pooran or asking her or any other inmate to perform personal favours. She further rejected an allegation that she could manipulate circumstances to gain exclusive access to Pooran, saying she was required to obtain authorisation before moving an inmate and could not have had exclusive access to Pooran anywhere inside the institution. She also denied making sexual advances towards Pooran in 2011 or at any other time. Impossible encounter Grant addressed another allegation concerning an incident purportedly occurring around 4 a.m., saying prison procedures and security arrangements made such an encounter impossible. She said 4 a.m. fell within the 9 p.m.-to-6 a.m. night-duty shift, when prison keys were kept by the officer in charge. Grant said she would therefore have had no authority as a prisons officer I to remove Pooran from her cell and take her to the prison officers’ dormitory. “The Prison Officer’s dormitory is located outside of the prison, located adjacent. Prisoners are never moved to clean the Prison Officer’s dormitory or anywhere at 4:00 a.m.,” she stated. Grant said the prison would have been under lockdown at that hour, and she could not have moved a prisoner elsewhere. “All allegations of sexual advances are vehemently denied. Such an occurrence is just impossible as the Prison Officer’s dormitory would have been occupied by other officers at that time,” she stated. She added that she could not leave the prison while working the night shift and did not possess the keys necessary to remove a prisoner. No personal grouse On the final page of the affidavit, Grant also rejected allegations concerning maintenance work, saying dedicated maintenance officers handled such duties and that she could not take an inmate to perform maintenance without authorisation. She said cellphones were prohibited in the prison and maintained she did not take her phone to work. Grant also denied that any incident had ever occurred between herself and Pooran, that she had fought with her or that she had ever been investigated for sexual activities or incidents involving the former inmate. “At all times my interaction with the Claimant was respectful and in accordance with my duties. I have never had any personal grouse with the Claimant,” Grant concluded in the affidavit sworn in Port of Spain on December 14, 2022.