Cooper v Augier et Al
| Jurisdiction | St Lucia |
| Judge | Bishop, J. |
| Judgment Date | 01 October 1965 |
| Neutral Citation | LC 1965 HC 4 |
| Date | 01 October 1965 |
| Court | High Court (Saint Lucia) |
| Docket Number | No. 55 of 1963 |
Windward and Leeward Islands Supreme Court. High Court
Bishop, J.
No. 55 of 1963
Damages - False imprisonment — Plaintiff claimed general damages of $250,000 as a result of his arrest and detention by the defendants — Christie v. Leachinsky [1947] 1 All E.R. 567 applied — Court held that the police had a reasonable excuse to have arrested the plaintiff — Application dismissed.
Despite the failure by plaintiff or his solicitor to file a written request that Writs of Summons should issue, there were served on the defendants' Writs of Summons commanding them to appear before the Supreme Court and answer the demand contained in the declarations, which were annexed. Also, the plaintiff through has solicitors filed a praecipe for service in which he asked that two copies of the declaration be served on the defendants.
Prior to filing this praecipe, the solicitor for the plaintiff filed notices in accordance with article 28 of the code of Civil Procedure of St. Lucia, 1957 in which the defendants were informed of the suit.
Robin Cooper, an Insurance and Commission Agent of Castries herein referred to as the plaintiff claimed general damages in the sum of two hundred and fifty thousand dollars ($250,000.00) in consequence of his allegation “that on the 15 th day of January, 1963 at his premises situate at No. 48 St. Louis Street, Castries, and within the First Judicial District of this Colony the defendants unlawfully arrested the plaintiff and subsequently unlawfully and maliciously imprisons the plaintiff at the Port Police Station, Castries whereby the plaintiff suffered damage”.
The defendants are, or were, at the time alleged, members of the Special Reserve Police or members of the Regular Police Force. The defendants, Imbert Roberts and Cuthbert Anthony were members of the Special Reserve Police and the defendants Whittaker Angier, Allan Brown, and Allan Coombs were members of the Police Force of St. Lucia. (During the hearing of the case the Attorney General informed the Court that the defendant Allan Brown had ceased to be a member of the Police Force).
In their defence, which was filed more than six months after the plaintiff's declaration was filed, the defendants admitted the arrest of the plaintiff on the date stated in the declaration, but denied that such arrest was unlawful or, malicious, and that the imprisonment arising out of such arrest was unlawful or malicious.
The defendants pleaded further “that they acted in the exercise of their duty as Officers of the Police”.
In support of the allegation made by the plaintiff, counsel for the plaintiff led evidence from the plaintiff and from two witnesses, John Alphonse and Wentworth Skeete.
The plaintiff and witness Alphonse related to the Court their respective accounts of what occurred on the evening of the 15 th January 1963, the witness Skeete related events at No. 48 St. Louis Street on New Year's Day, 1963. The evidence of the latter witness is of little or no value to the court in determining the issue. The Court is concerned almost exclusively with what happened on the 15 th January 1963, and must decide whether the events amounted to an unlawful arrest of the plaintiff with subsequent false imprisonment. Therefore, as I see it, the Court must determine what are the facts leading up to the arrest of the plaintiff? It is clearly undisputed — indeed it is admitted — that there was an arrest. Was the arrest in the circumstances as found an unlawful arrest or not? Do the circumstances as found show that there was a false imprisonment or not?
By way of general comment, let me say here that it is perhaps regrettable that the evidence was not put before the Court earlier than May 1965 nearly 2 1/2 years after the incident. This Court fully realises the difficulties, which will have confronted the witnesses in the case to be able to recall events in accurate detail after such a lapse of time. The defendants who are policemen — either regular or special reserve — would perhaps have been at an “advantage” — not only because they are trained to appreciate the need for accuracy and detail when giving evidence, but because they may also have made written statements from which they may have been able to refresh their memories. These features may be true of the plaintiff and his witnesses also; but, in any event it is on the evidence, which is put before the court that the Court must find which version is probably the more accurate or likely account.
What then has this Court been told concerning the events leading up to the arrest? This Court has heard from seven persons about these events; it is not intended however, to deal in this judgement with each of the accounts in great detail. The plaintiff, Robin Cooper, who was 57 years old at the time, alleged in his evidence that he was in lawful occupation of premises at No. 48 St. Louis Street, Castries, where he was residing for a long time. He also stated that his cousin Justina Prospere also lived there, and was the owner of No. 48 St. Louis Street. She occupied a back room of this house at No. 48, while he, the plaintiff, occupied two rooms, one of which adjoined that occupied by Justina Prospere. According to the plaintiff, it was he who cared for Justina Prospere and kept the house in repair, and that he did until her death on the last day of the year 1962.
He also stated that prior to the 15 th January 1963, or some time around 8 th January 1963, he saw a padlock affixed to the back door of the room which was occupied by the late Justina Prospere; this door opened from the room into the yard of the premises. Having seen the padlock on the door, the plaintiff took certain steps, and on 15 th January 1963, around six-thirty o'clock in the evening he went, along with Joseph Alphonse and two other men, to the padlock on the door of the room. Attempts were being made to remove the padlock from the door, when one Stephen Biscette came on the scene and ordered the men to leave the padlock alone. According to the plaintiff, he then took the hammer and chisel, which were being used, and as he was knocking off the padlock, Biscette chucked him and he fell to the ground. Plaintiff continued in the following words: “When I got up three or four minutes after, I saw some men in the yard. The men I saw were all the defendants. They were dressed in civilian clothes”. Then the plaintiff described that defendant Roberts, after asking what had happened gave instructions that Biscette should open the padlock as he had the key. The plaintiff then forbad Biscette opening the padlock, and he – the plaintiff- moved towards the door; whereupon, Biscette pushed him and he fell to the ground. When he got up, he saw Biscette trying to open the padlock. He — the plaintiff — then moved towards the padlock; the defendant Coombs held him from behind and the defendant Roberts said “Take him away”. He was then shoved forward, and his hand twisted behind his back by defendant Coombs, who then pushed him into the street and threw him in the jeep, which took him to the station where he was charged with the offence of disorderly behaviour.
By this version then, the plaintiff's only positive and voluntary acts were:
-
(i) Attempting to knock off the padlock;
-
(ii) Getting up after being chucked by Biscette so that he fell to the ground;
-
(iii) Moving towards the door with the padlock;
-
(iv) Getting up from the ground after being pushed down by Biscette;
-
(v) Moving towards the padlock.
In other words, the plaintiff approached the padlock on the door of the room, which was formerly occupied by Justina Prospere on three occasions; he was pushed or chucked down twice, and he got up on each occasion; on the last occasion that he got up he was forcefully taken away by the defendants – or some of them – and put into the police jeep.
Now, what were Biscette's positive and voluntary actions as related by the plaintiff? These were that:
-
(i) Biscette chucked the plaintiff, who got up after falling;
-
(ii) pushed the plaintiff, who fell again;
-
(iii) tried to open the padlock.
The plaintiff asserted in evidence that he is a descendant of the late King John of Africa, though whether or not this is so, he is not alleging that he is in any way relying on or claiming any privilege or immunity from arrest by virtue of this relationship. Again, notwithstanding the statement of the plaintiff in his evidence that the defendants were dressed in civilian clothes, I do not understand the plaintiff to be claiming or to be relying on any lack of knowledge on his part that the defendants were policemen.
Counsel for the plaintiff did not refer at any stage to this as being relied upon, and indeed his submissions on behalf of the plaintiff with which I have dealt later in this judgment left no doubt that the plaintiff was not contending that he did not know and was not told that the defendants were policemen. Counsel submitted inter alia that there was “no evidence to show that the officers who acted without warrant had informed or notified the plaintiff thereupon of the charge on which he was arrested”. So that I am satisfied that the plaintiff is not saying that he did not know these men in civilian clothes were policemen, but rather, impliedly, that he knew they were policemen, but they did not tell him of the charge on which they were arresting him and that there were no reasonable grounds on which they acted.
The demeanour of the plaintiff when giving his evidence left much to be desired; and indeed, it was not difficult to assess him as an excitable and easily excited person who would be readily stirred to aggression. When he was being cross-examined the plaintiff often attempted to argue strongly with Counsel and particularly when Counsel tried to show that he – the plaintiff —...
To continue reading
Request your trial