Ali v The Attorney General of Trinidad and Tobago

• Jurisdiction: Trinidad & Tobago
• Court: High Court (Trinidad and Tobago)
• Judge: Edoo, J.
• Judgment Date: 30 November 1982
• Neutral Citation: TT 1982 HC 84
• Docket Number: No. 1993 of 1978
• Date: 30 November 1982

High Court

Edoo, J.

No. 1993 of 1978

Ali

and

The Attorney General of Trinidad and Tobago

Dr. A. Wills S.G. and Mr. Marcus for plaintiff.

Mr. Butler, State Counsel, for defendants.

Tort - False imprisonment — Plaintiff claimed that he was assaulted and wrongfully imprisoned at the police station — Court found in favour of applicant and awarded him damages of $79,750.00.

Edoo, J.

1 By his statement of Claim, the plaintiff alleges that on Sunday 30th November, 1975, the seconds third and fourth defendants wrongfully assaulted him and thereafter imprisoned him et the Couva Policy Station where he was detained far approximately one hour. During that time the fourth defendant (Beharry) without reasonable and probable cause laid two false charges against him viz. making use or obscene language and resisting a police officer in the execution of his duty. (paragraph 3); that on or about 27th February, 197B after numerous appearances at the Couva Magistrate's Court, the charges against him were dismissed. The plaintiff further loges that by the violent assault upon him he suffered personal injuries (paragraph 4). By an amendment made without objection during the course of the trial, the plaintiff further alleges that he continues to undergo clinical treatment and has suffered and will continue to suffer loss of earnings in the future (paragraph 7).

2 The plaintiff's claim against the defendants is for amoral damages including prospective loss of earnings on the footing of exemplary or aggravated damages. The first defendant, the Attorney General of Trinidad and Tobago has been joined by virtue of the State Liability and Proceedings Act. Wherever I use the term ‘defendants’ in this judgment I refer to the second, third and fourth defendants.

3 The plaintiff's case is that on the said 30th November, 1975 at around 7.00 p.m. he went to the Brechin Castle Staff Club where a bazaar was in progress, for the purpose of collecting his brother's musical instruments. His brother had been contracted by the organisers to play music for the function. On arriving at the Club, he went to the corner of the Club where the instruments were stored. The music which was being supplied by a stereophonic set of which apparently his brother was the DJ (Disc Jockey) had stopped before he arrived there. He encountered a crowd around the set who were calling for more music. He enquired from his brother whether he was finished. He then saw the second defendant (Maharaj) whom he had known previously, and requested him to use his good offices to get the crowd away from the set. Maharaj who was in plain clothes at the time accosted him in a hostile manner and’ with obscene words to the effect as to what was his (Maharaj's) concern in the matter. He then explained that two Sundays before at another function two speakers were damaged and when it was reported to the police, no investigations were made, Thereupon Maharaj who had a beer bottle in his hand pushed it against the left aide of his head making obscene remarks to the effect that plaintiff and his family had money. Maharaj then called the third and fourth defendants (Boodoo and Beharry) who were in uniform. Maharaj collared him and Boodoo and Beharry commenced to beat him with their batons. They took him to the centre of the hall and beat him again. At one stage Maharaj took Beharry's baton and beat him with it. They were jabbing him with the baton and he was attempting to parry the blows with his hands. He got most of the blows on his neck, head, back and left side or’ his body. They kicked, slapped and cuffed him. One Krishna Singh whom he had known previously spoke to the defendants, asking them to give him (the plaintiff) a chance. There was a crowd or 20 to 30 people around shouting “Don't beat the man!” and “Advantage!” A policeman in uniform, P.C. Corraspe came up and he complained to him that the defendants were beating him for nothing. The defendants continued to curse his family and invited Corraspe who was the senior officer there to lock him up. With the consent or the defendants and Corraspe he was placed in Krishna Singh's car by one Winston Ramdial and other friends of his and was instructed by the policeman to go home. As the car was about to leave the car park, Beharry and Corraspe stopped it and told him that he was under arrest but did not tell him what they were arresting him for. They placed him in a red Datsun car and took him to the Couva Police Station. There they placed him on a bench to lie down. His request to see a doctor was refused. After about an hour, one Gloria Murray earns to him intimating that she had got permission from a police officer (Ramnarine) to see him. He complained to her that he was experiencing a lot of headaches and pain and asked her to arrange for a doctor to see him. Ramnarine took his fingerprints and later gave him a Notice stating that he was being charged with using obscene language and resisting arrest. He was allowed to leave the station and was assisted by one Winston Ramdial and Murray who took him to the San Fernando General Hospital. The following morning he saw Dr. Fong and was warded. Subsequently he attended court and the charges against him were dismissed.

4 Under cross-examination, the plaintiff denied that before he got to the Club he had stopped to get a drink; that he was not the one who celled for the music to be played end did not act as spokesman for the crowd. He had no argument with the defendants and said that Beharry never told him that he was under arrest for using obscene language. He denied that he fell on stools or steel chairs and sustained the injuries which he said he had suffered. He reiterated that the policemen released him at the request of Singh who put him in his (Singh's) car. He denied that he fell off the bench at the police station at any time. He denied that when Maharaj struck him with the bottle he retaliated. The plaintiff's evidence was not seriously challenged in cross-examination.

5 Winston Ramdial, an automotive spare parts dealer., who lived and carried on his business in Couva, supported the plaintiff substantial with respect to the plaintiff's allegations of the assault upon him by the defendants at the Club. He testified that after the defendants had completed their beating of the plaintiff, Boodoo made a remark that they should lock him up. He followed them when they took the plaintiff outside, heard when Krishna Singh spoke to the defendant who allowed the plaintiff to go into (his) Singh's car. He saw the defendants conversing with Corraspe and then saw Beharry, Boodoo and Maharaj go to Singh's car, took the plaintiff out, told him that he was under arrest and placed him in the red Datsun car.

6 Under cross-examination, the witness stated that he estimated the crowd there at the time of the incident to be between 30 and 40 persons. He denied that there were chairs at the. site of the DJ set up. There were barstools in the Club but at the opposite and against the bar. He did not see the plaintiff fall onto chairs or stools nor did he see the plaintiff running at any time. When the policemen took the plaintiff outside he was limping. He reiterated that after the conversation with Corraspe the defendants went to Singh's car and arrested the plaintiff.

7 Gloria Murray, a nurse employed by Texaco Inc. supported the plaintiff and Ramdial with respect to the beating inflicted upon the plaintiff by the defendants. She estimated the beating to have lasted for about 10 to 15 minutes. She witnessed when the defendants took the plaintiff outside to Singh's car. He was limping and had one hand on his head. She saw the defendants take the plaintiff but of Singh's car and place him in another car. She followed that car to the Couva Police Station. She spoke to Ramesh Ramnarine who was the Constable on sentry duty at the Charge Room and was allowed to see the plaintiff who was lying on a bench. She observed that his left side appeared to be limp but that he was able to move and he appeared to be in pain when he did so. He complained about headaches and dizziness. When he was released, she assisted in taking him to the San Fernando General Hospital.

8 Under cross-examination, the witness said that she was outside of the Club and that the beating was taking place outside. She subsequently explained in re-examination that the building was an open one and that the beating took place under the roof of the Club. She said that at the time of the beating she saw the plaintiff raising his hands to parry the blows. At the police station he was lying on the bench or sitting up for the whole hour she was there and complaining about his headaches.

9 Krishna Singh gave evidence on behalf of the plaintiff, He was the principal of a primary school and was the secretary of the organisation which was responsible for the bazaar. He witnessed the incident of the beating. This is his evidence:

“About B.20 p.m. or B.30 p.m., I saw Farzan Ali. I saw him inside the Club and four policemen were around him. The music had stopped earlier. One of them was holding his hand and pulling him (the plaintiff) and actually jabbing him with a baton. I won't be able to recognize that policeman. I went to the person who was holding his hand and asked him to allow Mr. Ali to go, to give him a chance. About a minute or two afterwards, he carried Ali outside. I went to the policeman again outside asking him to let him go. The policeman gave him to me saying to send him home. I put him in a car. As the car was about to leave the compound, the same policeman came up and said ‘This car is going no place,’ words to that effect. He said he was going to lock him up,. He took Mr. Ali and they left in a car.”

10 The witness's evidence was not seriously challenged in cross-examination. However, he witnessed only one policeman in uniform jabbing and hitting the plaintiff...