PC138 Desmond Alfred v Assistant Superintendent of Police Emmanuel Joseph Sergeant (AG) Anthanaitius Mitchel the Attorney General

• Jurisdiction: St Lucia
• Judge: Cenac-Phulgence J
• Judgment Date: 24 January 2019
• Neutral Citation: LC 2019 HC 4
• Court: High Court (Saint Lucia)
• Docket Number: SLUHCV2012/0635
• Date: 24 January 2019

In The High Court of Justice (Civil)

Before:

The Hon. Mde. Justice Kimberly Cenac-Phulgence High Court Judge

SLUHCV2012/0635

Between:

PC138 Desmond Alfred

Claimant

and

Assistant Superintendent of Police Emmanuel Joseph Sergeant (AG) Anthanaitius Mitchel the Attorney General

Defendants

Appearances:

Mr. Colin Foster of Counsel for the Claimant

Mrs. Karen Bernard of Counsel for the Defendants

Cenac-Phulgence J

1 This is a claim of false imprisonment, trespass to goods, and detinue. In respect thereof, the claimant claims special damages, general damages, aggravated damages, exemplary damages for indignity, mental suffering, disgrace and humiliation suffered, costs, and interest.

2 The claimant, Mr. Desmond Alfred (“Mr. Alfred”) was, at the time of the incident giving rise to the claim, a Police Constable in the Royal Saint Lucia Police Force, stationed at the Vieux Fort Police Station (“the Station”). The first defendant, Mr. Emmanuel Joseph was Assistant Superintendent of Police, (“ASP Joseph”) and the second defendant, Mr. Anthanaitius Mitchel was Acting Sergeant of Police, (“SOP Mitchel”) both of whom were also posted at the Station. The third defendant, the Attorney General (“the AG”) is joined to the suit pursuant to the Crown Proceedings Act 1, as liable for any tort committed by servants of the State.

3 Mr. Alfred claims that he was deprived of his liberty for sixty-one hours having been wrongfully arrested, illegally detained and confined in a police cell; that his Blackberry Bold cellular phone (“the cell phone”), was illegally detained and has not been returned to him to date; and that his motor vehicle registration number HG1004 (“the vehicle”) was seized and illegally detained for five days without consent, search warrant or other lawful authority.

Background

4 Mr. Alfred alleges that on or about 19 ^th February 2012, at about 4:30 am, he was on duty at the Station when ASP Joseph and SOP Mitchel (together “the defendants”) invited him into ASP Joseph's office. There, ASP Joseph informed him that he was under arrest for the commission of the offence of burglary. He says that at the time of the arrest, they did not inform him of any sufficient reason or reasonable grounds for his arrest, which was carried out without a warrant, without cautioning him and without inviting him to respond.

5 Mr. Alfred says that the defendants then produced a search warrant to search his residence for tyres. Mr. Alfred says he was escorted to his home and the search warrant executed, but no tyres were found. Thereafter he was returned to the station where he was escorted to the police cell. Mr. Alfred further alleges that he was served a ‘Royal Saint Lucia Police Force Rights in Custody Form’ (“the Form”), which was not witnessed by a Justice of the Peace or superior officer

independent of the investigation and he was not allowed to make any telephone call or communicate with anyone until the following day at 10:00 a.m. when his wife made a complaint

6 Mr. Alfred alleges that he was not interviewed until 1:45 p.m. on 20 ^th February 2012, the day following his arrest. It was only at this time that he was allowed to see his Attorney. He says it was also at this time that he was made aware that he had been arrested on suspicion of having stolen tyres from a store room at the rear of the Station. Mr. Alfred alleges that thereafter he was further detained without being charged, and not released from confinement until 21 ^st February 2012 at about 6:00 p.m.

7 Mr. Alfred alleges the following particulars of false imprisonment against the defendants: arrest without a warrant; without any or any sufficient reasonable grounds; without informing him of the reason/ground for his arrest until thirty-two hours later; preventing him from making a telephone call to and impeding him from consulting or instructing his attorney for thirty-two hours after arrest; failing to allow him to communicate with friends or family until 10:00 a.m. the following day; failing to release him promptly or prefer charges against him within a reasonable time and bring him before a court of law as soon as possible; and arresting him and then beginning to look for grounds to justify unfounded suspicion that he was responsible for the burglary.

8 Mr. Alfred alleges the following particulars of trespass to goods against the defendants: causing search warrants to be executed in vain at the residence of his mother, his mother-in-law and driver, and arresting and detaining his driver for seventy-two hours without charge; wrongfully detaining the cell phone; wrongfully seizing, detaining and searching the vehicle without a search warrant, consent or other lawful authority; wrongfully refusing to allow him to remove the vehicle from the Station from 19 ^th February to 24 ^th February 2012.

9 Mr. Alfred says that as a result he was subjected to inconvenience, disgrace, indignity, humiliation, mental suffering; suffered loss of use of the vehicle and cell phone; and further that the broadcast of his arrest on the Juke Bois radio programme has caused him to suffer injury to his reputation and credibility.

10 To the contrary, the defendants say that on 19 ^th February 2012, when they invited Mr. Alfred into ASP Joseph's office, ASP Joseph informed Mr. Alfred that they had reasonable grounds to suspect that he had been involved in the commission of the offence of burglary of the store room. ASP. Joseph further informed Mr. Alfred that the stolen items involved a quantity of tyres housed there.

11 With respect to the search of Mr. Alfred's home, the defendants say that on informing Mr. Alfred of the search warrant, he denied the allegations and invited them to search his premises. This search was done in his presence, with his knowledge and consent and under the lawful authority of a search warrant. On returning to the Station, the defendants say that Mr. Alfred was not placed in the custody suites or any cell but was allowed the courtesy of being seated in the general area of the Station.

12 The defendants say that there is no requirement for the Form to be witnessed as suggested by Mr. Alfred and contend that it was properly witnessed and there was no violation of Mr. Alfred's rights in custody. The defendants say that Mr. Alfred's rights were explained to him but that he opted not to call his Attorney immediately. ASP Joseph says that notwithstanding, he requested Mr. Alfred to contact his Attorney in order that an interview could have been conducted in his Attorney's presence that day. The defendants say that Mr. Alfred was allowed to use the telephones at the Station to contact his Attorney or any person he desired.

13 The defendants acknowledge that Mr. Alfred was interviewed at 1:45 p.m. on 20 ^th February 2012 in the presence of his Attorney and subsequently released on 21 ^stFebruary 2012. The defendants deny the particulars of false imprisonment asserted by Mr. Alfred.

14 The defendants contend that there has been no wrongful detention of the cell phone. They state that they had reasonable grounds to request the cell phone, which Mr. Alfred surrendered willingly and which is undergoing forensic analysis. The defendants contend that the search of Mr. Alfred's vehicle was done with lawful authority for the purpose of forensic analysis and that upon completion of same, the vehicle was released to him on 22 ^nd February 2012 and not 24 ^th February 2012 as Mr. Alfred alleges.

15 The defendants deny the loss, injury and damage claimed to have been suffered by Mr. Alfred and state that the broadcast of his arrest was not done by the defendants or any servant or agent of the Crown.

The Evidence

16 Mr. Alfred, ASP Joseph and SOP Mitchell each provided a signed witness summary in the matter which was admitted as their respective evidence in chief at the trial. All three were cross-examined. Several aspects of the evidence were worthy of note and are set out below.

Examination in Chief

Mr. Alfred

17 Mr. Alfred's pleadings and evidence revealed a substantial number of inconsistencies. One such material inconsistency is that contrary to his claim on the pleadings, Mr. Alfred's evidence in chief was that ASP. Joseph did inform him of the reason for his arrest, being burglary of the Station's storeroom and theft of a quantity of tyres housed there. Contrary to the pleadings, his evidence in chief is also that he was informed that investigations pointed to him. Mr. Alfred's complaint in his evidence in chief is that at the time of his arrest, the defendants did not communicate to him what led them to suspect that he was implicated in the commission of the offence, nor that they had sufficient evidence to arrest and charge him.

18 In paragraph 5 of Mr. Alfred's witness summary, he says:

“ASP Joseph informed the Witness [Mr. Alfred] that some tyres, that had been stored at the back of the Vieux Fort Police Station in a small store room, had been stolen. ASP Joseph further informed the Witness that all investigations into the theft of the tyres pointed to the Witness as being the person responsible for the burglary of the tyres at the Vieux Fort Police Station. However, at no time did ASP Joseph or any other police officer communicate to the Witness what led ASP Joseph or PC Mitchel or any other police officer to suspect that he was implicated or involved in the theft of the said tyres. At no time did any of the arresting officers inform the Witness that they were in possession of any or any sufficient evidence to arrest and charge the Witness for the offence of burglary of the said tyres. Nothing was said to the Witness about what led the police to suspect the Witness. No reason was given to the Witness for his arrest and detention except that the Witness was informed that the police had reasonable grounds to suspect that he was implicated in the theft of the said tyres.”

19 Also worth...