[1] Kimberly Ward [2] Joel Daniel [3] Kashif Daniel Claimants v [1] The Chief of Police [2] Attorney General of Saint Christopher and Nevis Defendants [ECSC]
| Jurisdiction | Saint Kitts and Nevis |
| Judge | Thomas J (AG.) |
| Judgment Date | 27 November 2013 |
| Judgment citation (vLex) | [2013] ECSC J1127-5 |
| Court | High Court (Saint Kitts and Nevis) |
| Docket Number | CLAIM NO. SKBHCV2010/0248 & 0249 |
| Date | 27 November 2013 |
IN THE EASTERN CARIBBEAN SUPREME COURT
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE
(CIVIL)
CLAIM NO. SKBHCV2010/0248 & 0249
Mr Terrence V. Byron and Ms Talibah Byron of Byron & Byron for the Claimants
Mrs Tashna Powell Williams of the Attorney General Chambers for the Defendants
By way of claim forms and amended claim forms filed on August 06, 2010 and October 26, 2010 the claimant, in Claim No. SKBHCV2010/0248 Kimberly Ward and the claimants in Claim No. SKBHCV2010/0249, Joel Daniel and Kashif Daniel seek certain reliefs against the defendants.
The pleadings in both matters are similar so that for the purpose only of giving a preliminary indication of their content, those pleadings advanced by Kimberly Ward will dominate. However, the variations will be reproduced.
The reliefs sought are damages for malicious procurement of a search warrant, damages in trespass for wrongfully interfering with goods in the possession of the claimant[s] damages for assault 1, damages for false imprisonment 2 and wrongful arrest, damages for false arrest 3, aggravated damages, exemplary damages, costs as well as such other relief as the court shall think fit.
The actions rests on an allegation is that on February 7, 2010 there was a forcible into the home of one Joel Daniel of Conaree Village where the claimant was staying as a lawful visitor. This forcible entry is stated to be by a group of police officers of the Royal Saint Christopher and Nevis Police Force under the command of the 1 st named defendant and who are servants of the Government of Saint Christopher and Nevis and represented in these proceedings by the 2 nd named defendant.
In her statement of claim the 1 st claimant avers that she is 25 years old who works as a freelance professional make-up artist with her home base at Green Tree Project, St. Kitts. According to the claimant, she spends most of her time at the home of her boyfriend, Joel Daniel at Conaree Village.
In averment by the claimant with respect to activities of the 1 st claimant between February 06 and 07, 2010 the claimant says she attended a party at the home of the Daniel family and then returned to the home of her boyfriend sometime after midnight and then went to bed in the nude.
The events from approximately 4:59 a.m. on Sunday, February 07, 2010 are detailed by the 1 st claimant in paragraphs (5) to (17) of the statement of claim and include: loud shouting at the front door of the house; intrusion into the home by three police officers after the door was opened by Joel Daniel; the three police officers entered the bedroom where the claimant lay naked; the officers who entered the house included Sgt. Glenroy Browne, and Constable Matthew Maguire; Sgt Browne was requested by the claimant to show a search warrant but he refused to do so, Sgt Brown when asked by the claimant what they are after replied 'guns, drugs and or ammunition'; no guns, drugs or ammunition were found; the police officers then said "declare all electronics", thereupon the claimant produced her laptop and three cellular phone. Sgt Browne indicated that he was looking for an Apple computer but he took away the claimant's HP mini-computer; on the outside the officers requested the 1 st claimant to open her car which was a rented car, R661; the 1 st claimant refused to open the vehicle and requested to be shown a search warrant; Sgt Brown in response said that they did need a search warrant to search for everything and that they could get a warrant of the fact; Sgt Brown indicated to the claimant that he was going to take the claimant's car into custody; the claimant's car was taken into custody and the claimant travelled in said car to the Frigate Bay Police Outpost; the 1 st claimant was detained at the Frigate Bay Outpost questioned about her activities on 25 th January 2010 and released around 10:00 a.m. on the said Sunday, February 2010; when the rental car was returned but the three cell phones were kept in police custody for several more days before they were returned; the claimant has not been informed she was charged with any offence.
The claimants hold fast to the issue of malice with respect to the actions of the police and certain particulars are pleaded.
In an amended defence filed on November 26, 2010, the amended claim and amended statement of claim are disputed or a number of grounds including the contention that the 1 st claimant, Kimberly Ward, has no locus standi to bring an action for malicious procurement since no warrant was issued in relation to her. And further that the claimant was not falsely arrested but lawfully detained on the morning of February 7, 2010.
The defendants admit the date of Sunday February 2010 but owner that they did not arrive at the premises at 4:54 a.m. but rather at approximately 6:15 a.m. at which time Sgt Glenroy Browne, accompanied by Constable Matthew McGuire and WPC Nekeisha Thomas entered the claimants' premises and Brown knocked on a door. The claimants' contention that they were startled out of their sleep is neither admitted nor denied. Further, that it is not within the knowledge of the defendants that the door was that of a bedroom door where the claimant was sleeping.
At paragraph 15 of the defence the averments relate to the procedure followed by Sgt Brown including a request to open the door the possession of a warrant to search for guns, drugs ammunition and goods suspected of being stolen, entry into the house after Joel Daniel after being shown the warrant allowed the officers into the house.
In so far as the search is concerned, the defendants contend that it was conducted peacefully, that there was no unlawful conduct on the part of any of the officers present, and that the claimant and other occupants of the house were asked to declare all electronic goods prior to the conduct of the search.
At paragraph 12 of the amended defence the following is pleaded:
"12. In relation to paragraph 12 it is admitted that Sgt Brown indicated that among the electronic items reported stolen from the Frigate Bay area was a Mac Pro laptop. The Defendants deny that the Claimants H8 mini any other laptop computer was taken away by the police officers. The Defendants rely on the entry (copy exhibited herewith as 'AG2') in the exhibit book of the Frigate Bay Police Station showing items taken into custody on February 7, 2010 which clearly shows that no laptop computer was among the items taken into custody from the premises of Joel Daniel or from the Claimant on February 7, 2010".
The regards the claimants' contention regarding her query to Sgt Browne as to whether or not she was under arrest, the defendants' contention is that the claimant was informed at the premises that she was being arrested on suspicion of larceny and being in possession of stolen goods.
At paragraph 15(b) of the amended defence the following is pleaded:
"At the Frigate Bay Police Station, the Claimant was only questioned about matters relevant to the suspected stolen items in particular the blackberry phone. At no time did Sergeant Browne or my other officers question the Claimant about any alleged activities on the 25 th January 2010 or in relation to my matter connected with general election or any video allegedly taken by her on that date. The defendants state that it was the claimant who voluntarily rambled on about persons allegedly voting in other places on Election Day and taking a video and or pictures of such alleged activities. Sergeant Browne posed no questions to the Claimant about election day on any alleged activities of the Claimant on that day as the same was irrelevant to the instant investigation".
At paragraph 17 of the amended defence the defendants "deny that any person acting under the authority of the defendants falsely and maliciously and without reasonable or probable cause the issuance of the search warrant and deny further that the search warrant was not procured in any way to cause damage to the claimant". And at the later stage in defence it is denied that the search was politically motivated.
The amended defence goes on to deny the particulars set out in the amended statement of claim and states that the search warrant was procured upon reasonable and probable cause; and upon lawful grounds to include the following: a high incidence of break-ins and larceny in and around January 2010; investigations led Sgt Brown and other investigating officers to believe that a person named Joel Daniel alias "Cartoon" living in Conaree was involved in the commission of these crimes; the police at all times acted under the genuine and reasonable belief that Joel Daniel was involved; and the claimants' car was a white rental car parked in front of the premises of Joel Daniel which led the police officers to the reasonable belief that it may have been involved in the criminal activities under investigation.
Finally, the defendants deny that any items of the claimant were unjustifiably or unlawfully seized by the police and further deny that claimants' HP mini computer or any other computer belonging to the claimant was seized by the police. As a consequence the defendants deny that the claimant is entitled to the relief claimed.
In her reply the claimant avers that she does have locus standi to bring an action for malicious procurement of a search warrant.
With respect to paragraph 1 of the amended defence the contention is that the defendants have confirmed that the claimant was falsely arrested as they have not, as they are obligated as a matter of law to do, given any or sufficient grounds for the arrest of...
To continue reading
Request your trial