Akeema Guy v The Attorney General of Trinidad and Tobago

• Jurisdiction: Trinidad & Tobago
• Judge: B. A. Lambert Peterson
• Judgment Date: 11 September 2024
• Neutral Citation: TT 2024 HC 197
• Docket Number: Claim No. CV2020-02854
• Court: High Court (Trinidad and Tobago)

Between

Akeema Guy

Claimant

and

The Attorney General of Trinidad and Tobago

Defendant

BEFORE THE HONOURABLE MME JUSTICE B. A. Lambert Peterson

Claim No. CV2020-02854

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE

APPEARANCES:

Mr. Gabriel Glanville instructed by Ms. Anthea Smith for the Claimant.

Ms. Aryanta Williams and Mr. Che Richards instructed by Ms. Melissa Papoonsingh for the Defendant.

INTRODUCTION

1 The Claimant seeks damages for wrongful arrest and false imprisonment. The Claimant by her Claim Form and Statement of Case both filed on 13 September 2020 has alleged that police officers acted unlawfully in arresting and detaining her between 14 September 2018 and 19 September 2018. The Claimant was released from police custody without charge.

ISSUES

2 The following are the issues to be determined:

• i. Whether there was reasonable and probable cause for the arrest of the Claimant?

• ii. Whether the detention of the Claimant from arrest to release from police custody was justified?

• iii. Whether the Claimant is entitled to damages for wrongful arrest and/or false imprisonment?

• iv. Whether the Claimant is entitled to exemplary and aggravated damages?

THE CLAIMANT'S CASE

3 The Claimant claimed that on 14 September 2028 at around 6:00 a.m. her friend Tanisha telephoned her and requested that she move a vehicle parked at 19 ^th Street, Beetham Gardens because police officers were on that street. She was told that the owner of the car could not move the motor vehicle because his driver's permit had expired.

4 She agreed to do so and walked to meet the person who needed the vehicle moved (hereinafter referred to as “Yogi”). Yogi gave her a car key and she approached two vehicles. She greeted the three police officers standing near the vehicles. The Claimant phoned Tanisha and ascertained which vehicle she was required to move. She was informed by one of the police officers that she could not move the vehicle as it had to be taken away by wrecker for investigation. The police officer also told her that she had to wait as other police officers would need to speak to her.

5 The Claimant told the officers that she had to go to work. She informed them that she could take them to Yogi, who had given her the car keys. One of the officers stood directly in front of her preventing her from leaving. She stayed there for approximately 45 minutes during which time she indicated to the police officers that she would be late for work. The officer who stood in front of her told her to remain there. Shortly after, other police officers arrived and arrested the Claimant. She was handcuffed, and conveyed to the Besson Street Police Station.

6 At the Besson Street police station, the Claimant was threatened that everyone who was arrested would be released but her. She was informed that she would be released if the owner of the vehicle came to the police station.

7 The Claimant was allowed a phone call. She called Tanisha and asked her to tell the owner of the car to come to the police station. In the evening, the Claimant's name was called out by a male voice which said Yogi and the registered owner of the car were at the police station. Later that evening, the Claimant was taken to the Ste Madeleine Police Station

8 On 16 September 2018, a police officer interviewed the Claimant in her mother's presence at the Ste Madeleine Police Station. She was shown a video, but she did not know the location of the persons in the video. She repeatedly told the police officers this. She saw the car that she went to move on 14 September 2018 in that video. The Claimant told the officer that she recognised the car by the number plate.

9 The police officer told her that the car was used as transport in a robbery attempt. The Claimant informed the officer that she did not know anything about that. She was taken back to her cell where she signed a document presented by a Justice of the Peace. The Claimant was released from the Ste Madeleine Police Station on 19th September 2018.

10 The Claimant's case is that she suffered embarrassment and humiliation when persons saw her being handcuffed and placed in a public vehicle. She also suffered mental distress, and “emotional and mental torture” because of the actions of the police.

THE DEFENDANT'S CASE

11 The Defendant denies that the Claimant was unlawfully arrested. The Defendant's case is that the police officers acted in good faith and with reasonable and probable cause in arresting the Claimant. She was arrested in relation to a report of a robbery which involved vehicle PCW 4324. The Claimant was attempting to move the said vehicle.

12 The witnesses on behalf of the Defendant assert that on 14 September 2018, Police Sergeant Nanan Regimental Number 14492 received a report that a robbery had taken place in Princes Town around 2:45 a.m. that same morning. CCTV footage was subsequently retrieved which showed two men running from the scene of the robbery and entering a Nissan Tiida motor vehicle PCW 4324.

13 Police Constable Baksh Regimental Number 14789 was on mobile patrol in the Port of Spain district on 14 September 2018. He received a wireless transmission from the Command Centre to be on the lookout for a white Nissan Tiida vehicle PCW 4324 (“the suspect vehicle”). That vehicle was said to be proceeding from South to the Port of Spain area, and was allegedly involved in a robbery. PC Baksh proceeded to Beetham Gardens. There were three marked police vehicles on mobile patrol.

14 The party of police officers proceeded through 18 ^th Street onto 19 ^th Street, Beetham Gardens. The suspect vehicle was parked on 19 ^th Street, off 18 ^th Street. Several persons were standing near the suspect vehicle. They ran as the police vehicles approached. The police officers in the vehicle with PC Baksh along with other officers pursued the persons who ran from the suspect car. PC Baksh remained next to the suspect vehicle.

15 The Claimant approached the suspect vehicle with the car key in her hand. She attempted to enter the vehicle. PC Baksh asked her how she obtained the key to the suspect vehicle but according to PC Baksh, “she was unable to provide a proper response.” PC Baksh considered this reasonable and probable cause to arrest the Claimant ‘on enquiries’ in relation to the robbery report. He cautioned, arrested, and took the Claimant to the Besson Street Police Station.

16 Sergeant Nanan continued enquiries into the robbery report. On 16 September 2018, the Claimant was interviewed at the Ste Madeleine Police Station in the presence of her mother and WPC Pierre Regimental Number 14386. Sgt Nanan continued enquiries and the Claimant was released from the police station on 17 September 2018.

17 The Defendant denies that the Claimant suffered any hardship, pain and suffering, or intimidation causing loss or mental anguish.

ORDER

18 IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT :

• a. The Claim filed herein on 13 September 2020 is dismissed;

• b. The Claimant to bear the Defendant's prescribed costs for a claim deemed to be valued $50,000.00 to wit $14,000.00

OVERVIEW OF SUBMISSIONS

19 The Claimant filed propositions of law on 19 August 2024 and made oral submissions. Counsel for the Claimant submitted that the Claimant was arrested at around 6:30 a.m. on a mere suspicion of PC Baksh. That suspicion was based on the Claimant being in possession of the key to a car suspected of being used to transport men suspected of having committed a robbery in Princes Town earlier that morning.

20 The Court was asked to consider that none of the other police officers who were on mobile patrol gave evidence in support of the Defendant's case. Counsel also submitted that the police station diary contained incorrect information concerning the Claimant.

21 The Claimant's Counsel submitted that the period of the Claimant's detention was unlawful. He commended to the Court the case of Williamson v The Attorney General of Trinidad and Tobago ¹ (the Williamson case), whereby the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council reiterates that detention on inquiries or for questioning is not permissible. It was submitted by Counsel that the entire period of the Claimant's detention was unlawful.

22 The Defendant filed propositions of law on 19 August 2024 and made oral submissions.

23 Both Counsel relied on the same statutory underpinning for a police officer's power of arrest and a police officer's arrest without a warrant. In addition, both Counsel relied on Halsbury's Laws of England.

24 The Defendant's Counsel submitted that, prior to arrest, the arresting officer must have reasonable and probable cause to arrest the Claimant. Counsel commended the dicta of Honourable Mr. Justice of Appeal Narine in the case of Nigel Lashley v The Attorney General of Trinidad and Tobago ²

¹ [2014] UKPC 29

(“the Nigel Lashley case”) whereby a police officer is entitled to arrest a suspect and conduct further enquiries in order to see whether his suspicions are confirmed or dispelled

25 Counsel submitted that in applying the law to the facts of the instant case, PC Baksh had a genuine and honest belief that the Claimant was one of the persons involved in the Princes Town robbery earlier that morning.

26 The Defendant's Counsel submitted that the Court should examine the evidence very carefully, together with the contemporaneous documents and the probability or improbability of each contention in order to satisfy itself of whether one party's version was more probable. Counsel relied on cases that were compatible with the learning of the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council in Horace Reid v Dowling Charles and Percival Bain [1989] UKPC 24. That case provided guidance to judges at first instance when seeking to resolve conflicts of evidence, by taking advantage of having seen and heard the witnesses give their evidence.

27 In addition, the Defendant's Counsel relied heavily on the...