Wayne Paponette v The Attorney General of Trinidad and Tobago

• Jurisdiction: Trinidad & Tobago
• Judge: Mr. Justice Devindra Rampersad
• Judgment Date: 03 October 2023
• Neutral Citation: TT 2023 HC 305
• Court: High Court (Trinidad and Tobago)
• Year: 2023
• Docket Number: Claim No.: CV2022-00876

Between

Wayne Paponette

Claimant

and

The Attorney General of Trinidad and Tobago

Defendant

Before

The Honourable Mr. Justice Devindra Rampersad

Claim No.: CV2022-00876

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE

Appearances:

Claimant: Lemuel Murphy instructed by Manuela Hospedales

Defendant: Rachael Lyncia Jacob instructed by Kezia Redhead

Table of Contents

Background	3
False Imprisonment and Malicious Prosecution	6
The Other Evidence	11
Damages	13
The Spinal Injury	14
The Physical Damages Suffered	16
Quantum	20
Personal Injuries suffered by the claimant	20
The nature and extent of the injuries sustained	20
Pain and suffering endured	21
Loss of amenities suffered	23
Loss of pecuniary prospects	24
The Authorities	24
Discussion	26
Exemplary damages	27
The Order	28

1 By claim form and statement of case filed on 3 March 2020, the claimant brought the instant proceedings against the defendant for the following reliefs:

• 1.1. Damages for malicious prosecution, false imprisonment, malicious prosecution and assault and battery;

• 1.2. Aggravate damages;

• 1.3. Exemplary damages;

• 1.4. Interest;

• 1.5. Costs and;

• 1.6. Such further and or relief as the Honourable Court deems fit.

Background

2 The claimant's case is that on 4 March 2016, at approximately 11:30pm, the claimant and his friend, Mr. Anthony Caraspe were walking along the Eastern Main Road, heading to the claimant's house after spending some time at Bailey's Bar on the Eastern Main Road in Arima.

3 Mr. Caraspe was carrying a half bottle of white oak rum that was leftover when they were stopped by police officers in a marked police vehicle. The officers were in plain clothes. The officers exited the police vehicle and conducted a search of the claimant and Mr. Caraspe.

4 PC Alex Salina then handcuffed the claimant and placed him and Mr. Caraspe in the back of the police vehicle and eventually taken to the Arima Police Station where he was taken to a room and beaten and kicked about his body by PC Salina in full view of another officer who stood at the door to the room.

5 PC Alex Salina and another officer then carried the claimant under his arms to a police jeep and transported him to the Arima Health Facility where he was specifically treated for an injury to the chin with stitches.

6 On return to the Arima Police Station the claimant was searched, his personal items removed and he was placed in the holding cell in an awkward position with four other persons including Mr. Caraspe. Sometime later, as a result of the injury, an ambulance was called and medical personnel attended to the claimant. The claimant's vitals were checked through the bars of the cell.

7 The claimant was charged by the said PC Salina with four offences set out below.

8 On 6 March 2016, at 9:00am, the claimant was granted station bail. He was assisted to the charging area by Mr. Caraspe and had to be assisted to place his finger print on the document as he was unable to sign his documents. The claimant was carried to the waiting area of the police station by his associate Mr. Caraspe and given into his mother's care. His mother then took him to the Arima Health Facility for further medical treatment where he was treated for laceration to the chin caused by a sharp object, decreased range of motion of both arms due to injuries, decreased range of motion due to injuries to both shin and feet, soft tissue injuries, cervical spine/mandible, spinal injury.

9 On 6 June 2017, the matters against the claimant was dismissed as there was no appearance of the complainant and the court prosecutor had no file.

10 The claimant then underwent an anterior cervical decompression and fusion at the Mount Hope General Hospital in October 2018 as a result of the injury. The claimant was wheelchair bound and at times, uses the assistance of a walking stick. He still experiences disability and in 2017 began receiving assistance from the state for the same.

11 The claimant, in 2019, received a report from the neurosurgery clinic stating his permanent disability persists to 75% and he continues to receive disability.

12 As a result of the assault on the claimant, he suffered prolonged weakness to his body and is unable to work and enjoy any sporting activity.

13 On the other hand, the defendant's case is that on the 4 March 2016, at 11:15pm, PC Alex Salina, PC Adrian Williams and PC Henderson was on patrol when they received information from TTPS Command Centre of persons behaving in a disorderly manner at Bailey's Bar located on the Eastern Main Road, D'abadie.

14 On arrival at the bar's car park, PC Salina observed two men, one of whom was the claimant walking along the road, drifting from pavement to road, shouting various obscenities. PC Salina caused the police vehicle to be stopped, the officers identified themselves to the claimant and informed the claimant that they were going to conduct a search. However, the claimant continued to behave in what PC Salina deemed to be disorderly behaviour.

15 PC Salina formed the opinion that the claimant was drunk in a public place as he was drifting from side to side, his eyes appeared to be red, there was a strong scent of alcohol emanating from his breath and his speech was slurred. The claimant continued to use obscene language in a public place behaving in an erratic manner.

16 The claimant also resisted PC Salina when he was being arrested and in so doing, the claimant fell to the grass next to the pavement.

17 The claimant and Mr. Caraspe were arrested, subdued, placed in the back of the police jeep and was transported back to the police station. While in the back of the police jeep, the claimant continued to behave in an erratic way and hit himself against the back of the vehicle.

18 At the police station, whilst walking along the corridor in the vicinity of the charge room, the claimant pulled away, fell face forward and burst his chin on the tiled floor. PC Salina and PC Henderson immediately took the claimant to the Arima Health Facility for treatment. The claimant was cursing and shouting which made it difficult for doctors to treat him as he was intoxicated.

19 PC Salina does not recall or was not informed that paramedics came to the station to see the claimant but agrees that it should be recorded in the Station Diary. PC Salina recalls that the claimant was granted station bail and coming to court in a wheelchair at his first court hearing.

20 The trial was held on 17 January 2023 where the claimant relied on his own evidence and that of the following persons:

• 20.1. Adrianna Alexander;

• 20.2. Adele Paponette-Olton;

• 20.3. Anthony Caraspe.

21 The defendant relied on the evidence of PC Alex-Salina, Regimental Number 8410 (hereinafter referred to as ‘PC Salina’).

22 Parties filed their submissions on 3 April 2023 and 14 April 2023. The court has read the parties respective submissions and will discuss the relevant law and conclusions below.

False Imprisonment and Malicious Prosecution

23 On 5 March 2016, PC Salina No. 8410 arrested and brought four charges against the claimant that on Friday 4 ^th of March 2016 at Eastern Main Rd., Arima, a public place and within the limits of the said County of St. George East, he:

• 23.1. Did behave in a disorderly manner contrary to section 52 of the Summary Offences Act Chapter 11:02;

• 23.2. Was found to be drunk and disorderly contrary to section 51 (2) of the Summary Offences Act;

• 23.3. Did use obscene language to the annoyance of persons on the said street contrary to section 49 of the Summary Offences Act;

• 23.4. Did resist Alex Salina Police Constable Number 8410 in the execution of his duty contrary to section 59 of the Police Service Act Chapter 15:01.

24 He gave the sole evidence in support of all of these matters.

25 On the other hand, 2 witnesses gave evidence for the claimant on this aspect of the case — the claimant and his friend Anthony Caraspe.

26 Anthony Caraspe, to the court's mind, was hopelessly unhelpful. The majority of his evidence was to the effect that “I cannot recall” and it was so repetitive that it gave the impression that he was so very conscious of the need not to conflict with the claimant's version that the safest way out was to claim that he could not recall. That way, he was non-committal. He could not recall:

• 26.1. What time they went to the bar other than it was night-time;

• 26.2. Whether it was early in the night or late at night;

• 26.3. How often they would go to the bar to drink alcohol;

• 26.4. Whether he saw anyone else at the bar that night;

• 26.5. Initially, when they bought the 750 mL of White Oak Rum although, later, he remembered that the claimant had bought it when he returned from opening up for his girlfriend;

• 26.6. How long after the claimant went to open up for his girlfriend he returned;

• 26.7. If he could have seen claimant's house from the bar;

• 26.8. If persons i.e. paramedics, came to take blood pressure from the claimant the same night or the next morning;

• 26.9. When the claimant told him what had happened to him;

• 26.10. How long he was in the cell for.

27 He also conflicted with the claimant's evidence on several accounts:

• 27.1. The claimant said that when he returned to the cell, he told Anthony that “The police really beat me.” However Anthony could not recall when the claimant told him anything about his experiences and, in fact, he was clear that the claimant did not tell him anything when he returned to the cell as the claimant could not have spoken;

• 27.2. He said that one could not see the bar from the claimant's house — something that the claimant himself said was possible although his mother did not agree with that in cross-examination;

• 27.3. The claimant said that he and Anthony would go drinking at the bar about 3 times for...