Kenan Lopez v Cpl. Esmin Flores
| Jurisdiction | Belize |
| Judge | Madam Justice Genevieve Chabot |
| Judgment Date | 10 January 2023 |
| Docket Number | Claim No. 214 of 2021 |
| Court | Supreme Court (Belize) |
the Honourable Madam Justice Genevieve Chabot
Claim No. 214 of 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF BELIZE, A.D. 2023
Darrell Bradley, for the Claimants
Samantha Matute and Jorge Matus, for the Defendants
Kenan Lopez and Deidre Jones filed a Fixed Date Claim Form for constitutional relief seeking declarations and damages against the Defendants. The Claimants allege that Cpl. Esmin Flores and P.C. Dyran Chan breached their constitutional rights to liberty and security, their right to protection from arbitrary search and seizure, and their right to privacy when they entered the Second Claimant's yard, searched the First Claimant, assaulted the Second Claimant, detained both Claimants, and maliciously prosecuted the Second Claimant.
The Defendants allege that the First and Second Defendants had reasonable and probable cause to act the way they did. As a preliminary matter, the Defendants raise that this Claim is properly a private law claim, and that the Claimants ought not to pursue a claim for constitutional relief in the circumstances. The Defendants argue that this Claim is an abuse of process and ask this Court to dismiss it on that ground.
The Claim is dismissed. This Claim presents no “special feature” that justifies bringing it as a constitutional claim. This is a matter where the facts are disputed, and where an appropriate remedy in private law exists. The Claimants have not satisfactorily explained why this matter justifies invoking the Belize Constitution. 1
The Claimants filed a Fixed Date Claim Form for constitutional relief under Part 56 of the Supreme Court ( Civil Procedure) Rules, 2005 (the “ Rules”). The Claimants seek declarations and damages in relation to events that occurred in the early morning of March 20 th, 2020. The Claimants, who are siblings, allege that the First and Second Defendants entered the Second Claimant's yard without a warrant and without reasonable and probable cause, and carried on in an abusive and aggressive manner. The First Claimant alleges that he was searched, but that nothing incriminating was found. Despite finding nothing, the First and Second Defendants remained in the yard, where they assaulted, arrested, and detained both Claimants. Both Claimants were taken to the Queen Street Police Station, where they were further detained for approximately 6 hours. They were both released without being questioned or charged. The Second Claimant suffered injuries for which she was treated at the Karl Heusner Memorial Hospital.
The Claimants allege that the First and Second Defendants acted flagrantly, abused the authority of their office, and violated the Claimant s' constitutional rights. The First and Second Defendants thereafter allegedly maliciously prosecuted the Second Claimant.
The Claimants seek the following relief:
-
a. A declaration that the First and Second Defendants breached the First Claimant's constitutional right to personal liberty and security of person, guaranteed under Section 5 of the Constitution, Chapter 4 of the Substantive Laws of Belize, when the First and Second Defendants unlawfully and without any proper cause and justification detained the First Claimant and held him in police custody against his will in a cell at the Queen Street Police Station for a period from approximately 1:10 a. m. to 7:00 a.m. on the morning of 20 March, 2020;
-
b. A declaration that the First and Second Defendants breached the Second Claimant's constitutional right to protection from arbitrary search and seizure and protection of privacy and the security and inviolability of her home, guaranteed by Sections 9 and 14 of the Constitution, Chapter 4 of the Substantive Laws of Belize, when the First and Second Defendants without reasonable and proper cause or suspicion and without a search warrant entered upon the residential premises of the Second Claimant then located at 7041 Elston Kerr Street, Belize City, Belize District, Belize and thereupon assaulted the Second Claimant.
-
c. A declaration that the First and Second Defendants breached the Second Claimant's constitutional right to personal liberty and security of person guaranteed under Section 5 of the Constitution, Chapter 4 of the Substantive Laws of Belize, when the First and Second Defendants unlawfully and without any proper cause and justification assaulted the Second Claimant at her home at 7041 Elston Kerr Street, Belize City, Belize District, Belize and thereafter arrested and charged the Second Claimant, including that they kept her in police custody against her will in a cell at Queen Street Police Station from approximately 1:10 a.m. to the time of her bail and thereafter proceeded on malicious charges against her.
-
d. Damages for breach of the foregoing constitutional rights.
-
e. Aggravated and exemplary damages.
-
f. Such further or other relief this Court deems just.
-
g. Costs.
The Defendants deny the Claim. The First and Second Defendants allege that they saw two males entering the yard and suspected they might have illegal firearms or drugs in their possession. While they were searching the First Claimant, the Second Claimant assaulted the First Defendant. The Defendants deny any breaches of the Claimants' constitutional rights as there was a proper cause to detain both Claimants.
The Defendants also submit that the Claim is not a proper constitutional claim, but rather a private law claim for false imprisonment, assault, battery, trespass, or malicious prosecution. The Defendants say that the Claim is an abuse of process and ought not to be maintained in its current form.
The following issues must be determined in this Claim:
Whether this Claim is appropriate for constitutional redress
-
a. Whether this Claim is appropriate for constitutional redress.
-
b. Whether the First and Second Defendants, without reasonable and proper cause or suspicion and without a search warrant, entered upon the residential premises of the Second Claimant then located at 7041 Elston Kerr Street, Belize City, Belize District, Belize.
-
c. Whether the First and Second Defendants' actions constitute a breach of the Claimants' constitutional right to protection from arbitrary search and seizure and protection of privacy and the security and inviolability of the Second Claimant's home guaranteed by sections 9 and 14 of the Belize Constitution.
-
d. Whether the First and Second Defendants unlawfully and without any proper cause and justification detain the First Claimant and held him in police custody against his will in a cell at the Queen Street Police Station for a period from approximately 1:10 a.m. to 7:00 a.m. on the morning of 20 March, 2020.
-
e. Whether the First and Second Defendants unlawfully and without any proper cause and justification assaulted the Second Claimant at her home, and thereafter arrested and charged the Second Claimant, including that they kept her in police custody against her will at the Queen Street Police Station from approximately 1:10 a.m. to the time of her bail and thereafter proceeded on malicious charges against her.
-
f. Whether the First and Second Defendants' actions constitute a breach of the First and Second Claimants' constitutional rights to personal liberty and security of the person guaranteed under section 5 of the Belize Constitution.
-
g. Whether the State of Emergency proclaimed in SI No. 34 of 2020 and the corresponding regulations contained in SI No. 35 of 2020 were properly applied to the Claimants.
-
h. What remedies, if any, are to be given for breach of the Claimants' constitutional rights.
This Claim was brought as a Fixed Date Claim Form for constitutional relief under Part 56 of the Rules. The Defendants dispute that this Claim is appropriate for constitutional redress because the Claimants have an alternative remedy in private law.
The starting point in the analysis is subsection 20(1) of the Belize Constitution, which provides persons with a right of redress for breaches of the fundamental rights guaranteed under sections 3 to 19:
20.-(1) If any person alleges that any of the provisions of sections 3 to 19 inclusive of this Constitution has been, is being or is likely to be contravened in relation to him (or, in the case of a person who is detained, if any other person alleges such a contravention in relation to the detained person), then, without prejudice to any other action with respect to the same matter which is lawfully available, that person (or that other person) may apply to the Supreme Court for redress.
Subsection 20(1) applies “without prejudice to any other action with respect to the same matter which is lawfully available”. While this language may suggest that a claim for constitutional relief under the Belize Constitution can coexist with a claim in private law, that is not how subsection 20(1) has been interpreted by our apex Court.
In Juanita Lucas and Celia Carillo v The Chief Education Officer et al, 2 the Caribbean Court of Justice (“CCJ”) upheld a decision of the Belize Court of Appeal finding that the appellants had not established a breach of their constitutional rights. While the majority focused their analysis on the various constitutional breaches alleged by the appellants, Justice Saunders, in his dissent, addressed the issue of whether the appellants' claim breached the “parallel remedies” principle. Of note is that Justice Saunders' analysis was not challenged by the majority in Lucas, and was subsequently adopted by this Court in matters including Bhrea Bowen v Attorney General of Belize and anor 3 and Melissa Belzaire Tucker v Chief Executive Officer et al. 7
Despite...
To continue reading
Request your trial