Gerald Goodridge v The Attorney General

• Jurisdiction: Trinidad & Tobago
• Court: High Court (Trinidad and Tobago)
• Judge: Mohammed, J.
• Judgment Date: 23 September 2025
• Neutral Citation: TT 2025 HC 284
• Year: 2025
• Docket Number: Suit No.: CV 2022-03032

Gerald Goodridge

and

The Attorney General

Mohammed, J.

Suit No.: CV 2022-03032

High Court

Appearances:

Mr. Che Cupid, instructed by Mr. James Philbert, Attorneys at law for the Claimant. Mr. Keron Maynard and Ms. Avion Romain, instructed by Ms. Anala Mohan, Attorneys at law for the Defendant.

Mohammed, J.

1 On 21 January 2019, Sergeant Taylor (“Sgt Taylor”), who was then Corporal Taylor, arrested and charged the Claimant for two counts of sexual touching of a minor in accordance with section 19 of the Children's Act and possession of marijuana. Later that year, on 27 November 2019, the charges of sexual touching (“the said charges”) were dismissed by a Magistrate. This action concerns the charges for sexual touching where the Claimant is seeking damages for wrongful arrest and/or false imprisonment, malicious prosecution, aggravated and/or exemplary damages, interest and costs.

2 The Claimant's case was on 21 January 2019, his minor daughter (“the minor”) did not return home from school. He visited the Point Fortin Police Station, where he reported that she was missing. Later that evening, while at the said Police Station, the minor arrived in the company of her grandmother. The minor had made certain allegations that her father, the Claimant, had touched her inappropriately. The Claimant was informed of the allegations against him and that the police had obtained a warrant to search his home for drugs, ammunition and guns. The Claimant was then placed under arrest. Thereafter, the Claimant was taken to his home, where the warrant was executed and the police found an object resembling marijuana in the Claimant's bedroom. The officers then took the Claimant back to the said Police Station, where he was charged with the offence of sexual touching. The Claimant was then placed in a cell.

3 On 22 January 2019, the Claimant appeared before the Point Fortin Magistrate, where he was granted bail. From 22 January 2019 to 15 April 2019, the Claimant remained in custody as he could not access the bail which he had been granted on 22 January 2022. During the Magistrate's Court proceedings, a successful no-case submission was made on the Claimant's behalf, and his case was dismissed on 27 November 2019.

4 The Claimant contended that he had been maliciously prosecuted and that his detention amounted to false imprisonment. The Claimant also contended that his business was closed during the proceedings in the Magistrate's Court and that it has remained permanently closed, as individuals no longer patronise same.

5 The Claimant pleaded the following particulars of malice, false imprisonment and the absence of reasonable and probable cause, namely:

• (a) The Defendant deprived the Claimant of his liberty, by way of the former's arrest of the latter, without lawful excuse and/or cause;

• (b) The Defendant failed to have an honest belief, based on reasonable grounds and/or the objective set of circumstances, that the Claimant committed any of the offences for which the latter was charged prior to his prosecution, and thus acted without reasonable and probable cause;

• (c) The Defendant was prompted to act by, and did act in furtherance of, ulterior and/or improper and/or indirect motives, other than to secure the ends of justice in charging the Claimant;

• (d) The Defendant failed and/or refused and/or omitted to inform the Claimant, upon his arrest and/or during his detention, of his right to communicate with/or retain and instruct, without delay, a legal adviser of his choice.

6 Notably, the Claimant did not plead that the appropriate agent/servant of the State did not have reasonable and probable cause to arrest or that the said person lacked reasonable and probable cause to arrest for the offences of sexual touching. In my opinion, this was material as the Defendant is in a representative capacity.

7 The Defendant denied the assertions made by the Claimant. The Defendant's position was that Police Corporal Edward Taylor #14795 (“Sgt. Taylor”) acted in good faith, without malice and with reasonable and probable cause in arresting the Claimant and then laying the said charges against him. The Defendant contended that on 21 January 2019 Sgt Taylor of the Child Protection Unit (CPU) South-Western Division, was on duty when at or around 3:10 p.m. the minor, who was 13 years old at the time as confirmed by her birth certificate, visited the Oropouche Police Station in the company of one Nicole Bermudez (“Ms. Bermudez”), who is the minor's cousin, and her grandmother, Donna Alexander (“Ms. Alexander”).

8 The minor made a report that on several occasions during 2017–2018, her father, the Claimant, touched her about her body. The minor reported to Sgt Taylor that the Claimant put his hands into her vest and squeezed her breasts on one occasion, and on another occasion, which took place on or about 28 April 2018, the Claimant, who was at the time seated next to the minor, put one of his hands into his pants and rubbed her leg with the other hand. The minor further reported that she observed the Claimant smoking what she believed was marijuana on at least one of the abovementioned occasions.

9 According to the Defence, the minor's report was corroborated by the minor's cousin, Ms. Bermudez, who, while not present when either of the incidents happened, indicated that she was informed on or about 19 January 2019 that the Claimant was known to ‘interfere’ with his daughter. The minor's grandmother, Ms. Alexander, also gave a statement to Sgt Taylor in which she set out that she went with the minor and her cousin to the minor's school to speak with a social worker.

10 The Defendant pleaded that the minor's report caused Sgt Taylor to form the genuine and honest belief that there were grounds to search the Claimant's premises for marijuana, guns and ammunition, and based on this, he obtained a search warrant to that effect. Sgt Taylor was then informed that the minor had been reported missing by the Claimant, who was at the Point Fortin Police Station. Sgt Taylor then proceeded to the Point Fortin Police Station in the company of the minor, her grandmother, cousin and officers from the CPU.

11 On arrival at the station, Sgt Taylor identified himself to the Claimant and spoke with him in a private room in the presence of WPC Meyers, who also introduced herself. The Claimant was informed of the report made against him by the minor and was allowed to respond to the allegations. The Claimant was informed that he was a suspect and cautioned in accordance with the Judge's Rules. The Claimant responded that he “never” did the acts of which he was accused. The Claimant declined to record a written statement and to provide an alibi or other such information which would have put the officers onto other inquiries. The Claimant did not mention any incident in the past where the minor had made any false allegations against him.

12 The Claimant was informed that a search warrant had been procured for the search of his premises for guns, ammunition and marijuana. The warrant was executed in the Claimant's presence and in the presence of other officers, the minor, her grandmother and cousin. Sgt Taylor spoke with the minor, who pointed out the various areas of the house where the incidents took place. In order to ensure the minor's safety, after speaking with her, Sgt Taylor made the decision in accordance with section 45 of the Children's Act to move the minor to safety, and she was allowed to leave with her grandmother.

13 In order to execute the warrant, Sgt Taylor showed the Claimant same and read it to him. The Claimant's response was words to the effect that he is a smoker and he smokes marijuana, and that all that might have been found was a bit of marijuana. On searching the bedroom of the premises, a packet containing an object resembling marijuana was found hidden in a shoe. The Claimant was informed that this item was believed to be marijuana, and he was cautioned.

14 The Claimant was arrested after the search of the premises based on Sgt Taylor's honest and genuine belief, based on the minor's report, the statements, interviews and investigations conducted by Sgt Taylor, that he had committed the offences of sexual touching as reported by the minor. In order to ensure that justice was served, Sgt Taylor discussed the matter of charging the Claimant with his superiors, and he was given the instructions by acting Woman Inspector Francis to prefer the charges, and he did so. There was nothing reported to Sgt Taylor that caused him to disbelieve the minor. At all material times, the Claimant was informed of the reason for his arrest and was cautioned in accordance with the applicable Judge's Rules. The Claimant was informed of his constitutional rights, including the right to retain and instruct without delay an Attorney at law of his choice, and to communicate with them.

ISSUES

15 If the Claimant's version of the events is correct, it means that Sgt Taylor did not have reasonable cause to arrest and charge him on 21 January 2019 for the said charges, and when he did so, he was actuated by malice. Conversely, if the Defendant's version is correct, then Sgt Taylor had reasonable and probable cause to arrest and charge the Claimant, and in doing Sgt Taylor acted without malice.

16 For the Claimant to succeed with this action the following issues must be determined in his favour:

• (a) Whether there was reasonable and probable cause for Sgt Taylor to arrest and detain the Claimant.

• (b) Has the Claimant established an absence of reasonable and probable cause on the part of Sgt Taylor to lay the said charges against him?

• (c) Has the Claimant proven that Sgt Taylor was actuated by malice in laying the said charges against him?

• (d) If the Claimant succeeds in liability, what, if any, damages are to be awarded to him?

17 Based on the parties' respective pleaded...