Thompson, Tillett and Woodye v Attorney General, Commissioner of Police and Arnold
| Jurisdiction | Belize |
| Judge | Hafiz, J. |
| Judgment Date | 15 November 2011 |
| Court | Supreme Court (Belize) |
| Docket Number | 530 of 2010; 531 of 2010; 532 of 2010 |
| Date | 15 November 2011 |
Supreme Court
Hafiz, J.
530 of 2010; 531 of 2010; 532 of 2010
Mrs. Agnes Segura-Gillett for the claimants
Nigel Hawke along with Ms. Iliana Swift for the defendants
Damages - False imprisonment and arrest — Quantum.
These are three consolidated claims which arose from the same factual circumstances. The three claimants, Thompson, Tillett and Woodye claim damages for false arrest and imprisonment. There was also a claim for damages for malicious prosecution but that was not pursued at trial. On 16th February, 2009 the three men were charged jointly with the offences of “conspiracy to commit murder” and “murder” and remanded to the Belize Central Prison until 13th January, 2010, when the charges were withdrawn due to insufficient evidence. The first defendant is sued as representative of the Government of Belize. The third defendant, Dennis Arnold is an Inspector of the Belize Police Department under the command of the second defendant the Commissioner of Police.
Thompson, Tillett and Woodye claim that they were detained and questioned regarding the death of one John Paul Saldivar which occurred in San Pedro. On 16th February, they were charged and later taken to the Belize City Magistrate's Court where they were arraigned for the offences of “Murder” and “Conspiracy to commit murder” in relation to the death of John Paul Saldivar. They claim that Inspector Arnold caused their false arrest and imprisonment which was done without reasonable cause and suspicion. Further, that they were detained in a prison cell for 11 months.
They claim Special Damages and General Damages in respect of their arrest and detention for 11 months. Their claim for damages include Aggravated and Exemplary damages for injury to their reputation and deprivation of liberty.
The third defendant, Inspector Arnold say that they had reasonable suspicion that the claimants were involved in the murder of John Paul Saldivar. Further, the claimants arrest were lawful and their subsequent detention was also within the confines of the law.
The three claimants, Thompson, Tillett and Woodye each filed a witness statement and were cross-examined. The defendant filed one witness statement from Dennis Arnold.
-
(1) Whether there was reasonable suspicion to justify the detention, arrest and charge of the claimants.
-
(2) Whether the claimants are entitled to damages.
Learned counsel, Mrs. Agnes Segura-Gillett in written submissions submits that the tort of false imprisonment is established where a claimant proves that there has been bodily restraint which is not authorized, expressly or impliedly, by law. False is used to mean “erroneous” or “wrong”. Imprisonment “is the restraint of a man's liberty …” (Winfield and Jolowicz on Tort (17th Edn) (2006) (pg 99-100).) Learned Counsel also relied on section 5(1) of the Constitution (Constitution of Belize, Chapter 4 of the Laws of Belize, R.E. 2000) which provides that a person shall not be deprived of his personal liberty save as may be authorized by law …. upon a reasonable suspicion of his having committed, or being about to commit, a criminal offence under any law. See also section 20 of the Police Act (Police Act, Chapter 138) relied on by Mrs. Gillett which provides for the duties of the Police Department.
Learned Counsel relying on Winfield and Jolowicz submits that the burden of proof of justifying an arrest is upon the person effecting it and if he fails to do so he is liable for false imprisonment. Further, that unless it can be shown that the claimant was guilty of the offence or was about to commit it, the power of arrest depends on reasonable grounds for suspicion and it is necessary to first establish that the arrester actually did suspect the claimant. (Winfield and Jolowicz on Tort (17th Edn) (2006) (pg 113).)
Learned Counsel further relied on the Privy Council Case of Hussien v. Chong Fook Kam [1979] A.C. 942 where Lord Devlin discussed reasonable suspicion and also Archbold: Criminal Pleadings, Evidence and Practice (43 Edition, 1988 at page 1195) where the learned Author discusses the meaning of reasonable suspicion.
Learned Counsel, Mrs. Gillett after referring to the evidence of ASP Dennis Arnold submits that it would appear that the only reason the claimants were initially arrested on the bridge in San Pedro is because they were Belize City men known to the Police. That ASP Arnold had nothing more to go on but a “hunch” or a “mere suspicion” that the claimants were involved in the shooting death of Paul Salidivar because he held them in very poor esteem. As such, Mrs. Gillett contends that this cannot amount to reasonable suspicion.
As for the subsequent arrest, charge and imprisonment of the claimants, Learned Counsel referred to paragraph 9 of the witness statement of ASP Arnold who said that “a witness gave a statement that he saw the claimants in this matter around the area at the time of the shooting and after further investigation I instructed Inspector Valdez now ASP to charge Micah Thompson, Shelton Tillett and Charles Woodeye.” Further, Counsel said that under cross examination, ASP Arnold stated that he had obtained statements from three persons, namely, Brionnie Swift, Alex Soler and Francisco Arceo J.P. but admitted that none of the statements, which he claimed formed part of his investigation, contained any references to the claimants.
Mrs. Gillett further argued that the statement obtained from the Forensic Specialist confirmed that it contained nothing implicating any of the claimants in the alleged murder of John Paul Saldivar. Learned Counsel also referred to further evidence under cross examination and again in re-examination where ASP Arnold said that there was a statement implicating the claimants but stated that the statement was on another file and that it did not form part of the investigation in relation to the alleged murder of Saldivar (See page 67 of the Transcript). Furthermore, Learned Counsel argued that ASP Arnold also confirmed that he gave a statement summarizing his investigation dated June 8th 2009, some four months after the charges had been laid against the claimants, yet it contains no mention of any statement or evidence implicating the claimants.
In further submissions, Learned Counsel submits that the claimants suffered damages as a result of ASP Arnold unlawful actions. Learned Counsel relying on the case of Gilbert Hyde v. A.G. et al - Supreme Court Claim No. 88 of 2009 (unreported) Dec. 22nd 2010 contends that the claimants' detention was as a direct consequence of the acts of the defendants and they are therefore liable for the loss.
As for the quantum of damages, Learned Counsel, Mrs. Gillett referred to the case of Thompson v. Commissioner of Police [1997] 2 All E.R. (CA) at page 774, where Lord Woolf, M.R. stated that “In a straightforward case of wrongful arrest and imprisonment the starting point is likely to be about £500 for the first hour during which the plaintiff has been deprived of his or her liberty. After the first hours an additional sum is to be awarded, but that sum should be on a reducing scale so as to keep the damages proportionate with those payable in personal injury cases and because the plaintiff is entitled to have a higher rate of compensation for the initial shock of being arrested. As a guideline we consider, for example, that a plaintiff who has been wrongly kept in custody for 24 hours should, for this alone, normally be regarded as entitled to an award of about £3,000.00. For subsequent days the daily rate will be on a progressively reducing scale.”
In arriving at a quantum of damages for the claimants, Mrs. Gillett relied on Gilbert Hyde v. A.G. et al and submits that if one were to use the award in Hyde as a basis for calculation, the claimants would each be entitled to approximately $366,000.00 as general damages:
11 months (330 days) / 18 days = 18.3
18.3 x $20,000.00 = $366,000.00
However, she further submits that taking into consideration that sums awarded for initial shock are higher than those awarded for extended incarceration, the claimants should each be awarded the sum of $200,000.00 as general damages for their detention of some 11 months. For Special Damages, Learned Counsel submits that Attorneys' Fees is $10,000.00 cumulatively and Charles Woodeye has pleaded and proven his loss of earnings in the sum of $18,658.10.
The defendants submit that the arrest of the claimants were lawful. They relied on section 42 of the Police Act which provides for police officer to apprehend without warrant where he has good cause to suspect that a crime has been committed. Further that the Police Officer must have proper and sufficient ground of suspicion. See the case of Irish v. Barry 8 W.I.R. 177 the Trinidad Court of Appeal, relied on by Learned Counsel where the learned Chief Justice Wooding quoted Lord Wright who said that the functions of police officers are not judicial, but ministerial, and it may well be that if they hesitate too long when they have a proper and sufficient ground of suspicion against an individual, they may lose an opportunity of arresting him. See also Herniman v. Smith [1938] 1 All E.R. 1, relied on by Counsel where it is stated that, It is not required of any prosecutor that he must have tested every possible relevant fact before he takes action. His duty is not to ascertain whether there is a defence, but to ascertain whether there is reasonable and probable cause for a prosecution.
Learned Counsel, contends that there was reasonable circumstances for suspicion because ASP Arnold received...
To continue reading
Request your trial