Jim Joseph v The Attorney General of Trinidad and Tobago
| Jurisdiction | Trinidad & Tobago |
| Judge | Madam Justice Eleanor Joye Donaldson-Honeywell |
| Judgment Date | 15 December 2021 |
| Neutral Citation | TT 2021 HC 274 |
| Docket Number | Claim No. CV 2019-04155 |
| Court | High Court (Trinidad and Tobago) |
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE
Port of Spain
the Honourable Madam Justice Eleanor Joye Donaldson-Honeywell
Claim No. CV 2019-04155
Mr. Mark Seepersad, Ms. Vishala Seepersad and Mr. Akash Ramroop Attorneys at Law for the Claimant
Ms. Trisha Ramlogan and Ms. Janine Joseph, Attorneys at Law for the Defendant
The Claimant is a Prisons Officer seeking damages arising from an incident in October 2015 when, he contends, a more senior Prison Officer subjected him to assault, battery, wrongful arrest and false imprisonment. He further contends that these actions constituted misfeasance in public office by the said senior Prison Officer for whose actions the Defendant is vicariously liable pursuant to Section 19(2) of the State Liability and Proceedings Act Chapter 8:02.
The Trial took place on 7 and 8 July 2021. At the close of the oral evidence, parties were directed to file written closing submissions. Only the Defendant filed submissions within the timeframe permitted by the Court. The conclusion date for submissions by the Claimant was 27 October 2021, however the Claimant neither filed same nor applied for an extension of time before the period elapsed. On parties being notified of a new December date being set for delivery of the Judgment, the Claimant applied for permission to file submissions after the time permitted. The Court granted extended time to 14 December 2021 for the submissions.
Having considered the pleadings, evidence and submissions, the Court's determination is that the Claimant succeeds in part by establishing false imprisonment. The reasons for this determination are explained in this Judgment.
The issues to be determined in this case are whether:
-
a. the Claimant has proven, on a balance of probabilities, that the Defendant is liable for an assault and battery against him
-
b. the Claimant was wrongfully arrested and falsely imprisoned
-
c. the Defendant's agents or servants behaved in a way that amounts to misfeasance in public office
-
d. the Claimant is entitled to damages, including aggravated and exemplary damages, for any of these torts. If so, what is the measure of the damages?
The Claimant is a Prisons Officer I employed by the Trinidad and Tobago Prison Service for over ten years. Following an escape from the prison in mid-2015, the Prison was on a heightened state of security for several months thereafter. During this period, the Claimant was posted as gatekeeper at the Port of Spain Prison.
In or around early October 2015, Superintendent Fabian Alexander, the Senior Prison Officer whom the Claimant alleges committed torts against him, arrived at the gate in his vehicle. The Claimant's instruction was to search every vehicle that entered the premises, hence he instructed two assistant gatekeepers to search Superintendent Alexander's vehicle.
According to the Claimant, Superintendent Alexander objected to the search, cursing at the Claimant and his assistants before allowing the assistant gatekeepers to search his vehicle. Thereafter, the Claimant states that he was called into the office of his supervisor, Mr. S. Ramudit, along with the assistant gatekeepers. Superintendent Alexander was present and he apologised to the assistant gatekeepers but not to the Claimant.
Approximately two weeks thereafter, the Claimant states that Supervisor Ramudit informed him that he might need to give a statement as Superintendent Alexander indicated that he intended to have disciplinary charges brought against him. There is no indication in the pleadings that the Claimant ever gave a statement or documented his report on this alleged occurrence. The Claimant states that nothing further was heard of any charges arising from the incident.
The pleaded case of the Defendant is that they have no knowledge of the facts pleaded by the Claimant about the alleged incident of objection by Superintendent Alexander to his vehicle being searched in early October 2015.
The Claimant's case concerning the later incident, which is the subject matter of his Claim, is that on 25 October 2015, he arrived at the Port of Spain Prison for duty at around 1:00 p.m. He was informed that Superintendent Alexander was conducting a routine search of officers entering the Prison and he proceeded to the designated search area. The designated search area is not specifically identified in the Claimant's pleadings, however, in the Defendant's pleadings, it is identified as the Programmes Office located at the main gate of the Prison. The Claimant does not dispute that this was the location.
The Claimant claims he had in his possession a bag containing his personal belongings - foodstuffs, toiletries and other personal items. Superintendent Alexander instructed the Claimant to place his personal items onto a table. The Claimant objected because the table was unhygienic. Superintendent Alexander responded by taking a tablecloth and placing it on the table. The Claimant claims he took this cloth from the floor and it was also soiled. The Defendant, while also pleading that Superintendent Alexander placed a cloth on the table, denies the Claimant's account that it was soiled and from the floor.
Superintendent Alexander instructed the Claimant to place his items on the tablecloth in response to which he stated that it was unhygienic for him to place his items on that cloth.
The Claimant claims that Superintendent Alexander responded aggressively to this and without warning, he forcefully grabbed the right arm of the Claimant to prevent him from moving. The Claimant's case is that this caused pain and injury to his arm.
The Claimant claims he informed the Superintendent that he was assaulting him and requested that he be released. According to the Claimant, Superintendent Alexander then grabbed him across his chest area, striking him on the left side of his chest wall. The Claimant says this caused him to have difficulty breathing.
The Claimant then asked for his supervisor, Mr. Ramudit, to whom he reported the incident. The Claimant states that Supervisor Ramudit told Superintendent Alexander that the Claimant was not an officer suspected of smuggling or trafficking. He then searched his bag in the presence of Superintendent Alexander and other officers. He found nothing prohibited or unauthorised.
The Claimant states he informed Mr. Ramudit that he was in pain from the blow received from Superintendent Alexander and requested medical attention. The Claimant states that, on hearing this, Superintendent Alexander instructed the gatekeeper and gatekeeper assistant not to allow the Claimant to leave the Prison, thereby detaining him.
From this point, the Claimant claims he was arrested, detained and deprived by Superintendent Alexander of his liberty, without due process of law for a period of approximately two (2) hours. According to the Claimant, he was not informed of the reason for this treatment.
The Claimant was then taken to another area of the Prison. There he was placed under the armed guard of Prison Officer Daniel from the Emergency Response Unit. The Claimant states that officer Daniel had two firearms, one of which was pointed towards him. He states that he was told by the officer “hush your mouth and sit down before ah have to shoot yuh”. The Claimant attempted to speak with another officer by the name of W. Mitchell to inform him what was happening but Superintendent Alexander directed that the two not speak to each other to ensure Mitchell did not contaminate the area.
At around 2:30 p.m., a party of heavily armed Police Officers came into the holding area. One identified himself as Assistant Superintendent Brown. The Claimant was informed that they had information from Superintendent Alexander that the Claimant had illegal items in his possession and that he required that the police attend the Prison and subject him to a search.
The team of police officers searched the Claimant's bag once again. The Claimant claims he was then strip-searched in a room to the front of the compound where the door was left open. He says the search took place in full view of the passing public and officers. This version of events is denied in the Defence.
According to the Claimant, the Police Officers, together with Superintendent Alexander, then took the Claimant to the Dormitory/locker area and searched the Claimant's locker. The Police Officers then took the Claimant to the “designated prison officer's only car park” where a search was conducted of his vehicle. Although not pleaded, the parties agree that this car park was located outside the premises of the prison next to the Law Association building.
After the Police were completed with their searching, nothing illegal or prohibited was found on the Claimant or in his belongings, on his person, in his locker or car. It is the Claimant's case that the search was “crafted” by Superintendent Alexander for the improper motive of humiliating and embarrassing him. This was with a view to teaching the Claimant a lesson for having searched Superintendent Alexander's car.
The Claimant returned from the car park to the prison along with his Supervisor, Mr. Ramudit, who then gave instructions that a prison ambulance should take the Claimant to the Port-of-Spain General Hospital. Superintendent Alexander instructed the Claimant to report back to the Prison thereafter regardless of whether sick leave was given to the him or not.
At the Port-of-Spain General Hospital, the Claimant was treated at the Accident and Emergency Department. He was given three (3) days sick leave and prescribed medication for the tenderness/soft tissue injury he alleges was sustained from the physical...
To continue reading
Request your trial