Iles v Attorney General et Al

• Jurisdiction: Saint Kitts and Nevis
• Court: High Court (Saint Kitts and Nevis)
• Judge: Hylton, J.
• Judgment Date: 24 June 1993
• Neutral Citation: KN 1993 HC 16
• Docket Number: No. 72 of 1992
• Date: 24 June 1993

High Court

Hylton, J.

No. 72 of 1992

Iles

and

Attorney General et al

Appearances:

Dr. Henry Browne for the plaintiff

Mr. Hugh Rawlins and Misses Yasmine and Angella Clarke for the defendants

Tort - Damages — Unlawful assault — False imprisonment.

Hylton, J.

1 By a Writ filed on 3 ^rd September, 1992 the plaintiff a man of 74 years sought to recover damages from the Attorney General as defendant No. 1 and Police Constable Joshua Halliday as defendant No. 2 in respect injuries which he alleged he sustained on 11 ^th November, 1991 at the hands of Police Constable Halliday.

2 THE STATEMENT OF CLAIM referred to the plaintiff as a labourer and Taxi Driver but the evidence which I accept discloses that the plaintiff is a semi-retired elderly gentleman who spent the greater period of his working life — approximately 30 years in St. Thomas, United States Virgin Island from where he now receives a pension. The plaintiff prior to the incident on 11 ^th November, 1991 was gainfully employed intermittently as a mason, part-time gardener and poultry farmer and was also accustomed to assisting his companion with her small stock. The plaintiff also owns and drives a 1983 Dodge, automatic left-hand drive motor-car which he took home from U.S.V.I. and it is this motor-car which caused him to come to the attention of the Second Defendant a Police Constable attached to the Traffic and Transport Division of the Federation's Police Force and stationed at Charlestown Police Station, Nevis, at a time when the Main Road immediately to the mountain-side of the Court House was blocked to vehicular traffic as the High Court was then in session.

3 The relevant paragraphs of the Statement of Claim, particulars of injuries and Particulars of Special Damages are reproduced here below:–

Paragraphs 4–6 of the Statement of Claim:–

• 4. On the 11 ^th day of November, 1991 at Charlestown, Nevis the second named defendant acting as the servant and or agent of the Crown in right of its Government of the aforementioned Federation without lawful authority and or in the pretended exercise of lawful authority unlawfully and maliciously assaulted and beat the plaintiff forcibly took him to the Charlestown Police Station where he was in bad faith unlawfully and maliciously and falsely imprisoned.

• 5. Further and in the alternative and by reason of the aforementioned matters the plaintiff was unlawfully and maliciously and in bad faith arrested and detained and or falsely imprisoned as aforesaid by the said second named defendant in contravention of Section of Section 5 of Chapter II of the Saint Christopher and Nevis Constitution Order 1983.

• 6. By reason of the matters hereinbefore mentioned the plaintiff suffered and is suffering and continues to suffer personal injuries, was deprived of his liberty is unable to follow his calling as aforesaid and is being put to great inconvenience discomfort and expense and is suffering severe damage.

Particulars of Injuries

• (i) Injury to Left Wrist and fingers

• (ii) Hypoaesthesia of the finger tips;

• (iii) Decreased range of movement of the left wrist;

• (iv) Neurovascular and ligament injuries.

Particulars of Special Damages

(i) Transportation Costs and miscellaneous expenses (St. Kitts)	$410.00
(ii) Loss of earnings ($1,350.00 for 6 months)	$8,100.00
(iii) Cost of medical care	$541.00
(iv) Cost of Switch (motor-car)	$35.00
	$9,086.00

AND the plaintiff claims:–

• (i) Special Damages $9,086.00

• (i) Damages for assault battery and false imprisonment;

• (ii) Further and/or in the alternative compensation pursuant to the provisions of Section 5 (6) of Chapter II of the Saint Christopher and Nevis Constitution Order 1983.

• (iii) Such further or other relief as may be just and equitable.

• (iv) Costs.

4 The case for the plaintiff is briefly that at or around 10:00 a.m. he drove down Government Road intending to go into the Main Street to purchase Chicken food at a pace. He became aware that he could not proceed into Main Street from Government Road and so turned around facing the direction from which he came and parked about 22 feet (pointed out and estimated) from the junction of Government Road and Main Street not too far distant from Hydrants and proceeded to another shop to buy chick-feed. He remained in the shop about 8 minutes because he was aware of the traffic situation and did not wish to be responsible a traffic congestion. He testified further that on approaching his car — two men approached him and one whom he identified as the Second defendant said “Hey no move”. The plaintiff said he entered his car and sat down whereupon the Second defendant said, “You hear I tell you don't move – what's you name?” To which the plaintiff replied, “You no know me?” The Second defendant then said, “Give me you name”, and the plaintiff responded with, “What you want my name for?” (The plaintiff said later in his evidence that there were also cars parked ahead of his car i.e. three pick-ups and five cars and his car was not causing any obstruction and so he had no idea as to why the Second defendant whom he maintained was dressed in Civilian clothes wanted his name.)

5 The plaintiff said further that the Second defendant responded that the plaintiff should not ask him any questions whereupon the plaintiff said he started the car and reversed intending to go forward to return home when the Second defendant placed himself in front of the car blocking the plaintiff's path. The plaintiff who is left-handed (he referred to his hand in this way “You would call this your left but it is my right hand — it is the hand I use”) placed his left hand on the window sill of the car which was a left-hand drive. There was no evidence as to the opening of the car door from the plaintiff but the plaintiff next testified as follows:–

“He start to pull me out car and my head hit up on – on the side of car. As he pull me head hit”, the plaintiff touched the left-side of his head and continued — a girl said “Hey all you come see how da man ya a, do de ole man in the car”

6 The plaintiff testified further that “the Street started to “full a people” and he start to pull me straight and said, “I don't like all you Nevis people and when he find he can't get me out he tell the other one “go round de other side and pitch he ass out ya give me”. The fellow go round open car door. (He wring me hand — this one shows right hand) off steering wheel and he pushed me out and he come behind”.

7 This second person was unknown to the plaintiff and his presence has been denied by the Second defendant. The defendants called Police Constable James Stephen as a witness but he denied being present at the scene before the plaintiff came out of his car.

8 It is not necessary for me to determine the identity or otherwise of this mystery-man as there is no allegation that anything he did caused any injury to the plaintiff.

9 The plaintiff next graphically described how the Second defendant held is left-hand and wring it behind his back — he appeared he said to lap the middle and ring fingers and when the plaintiff complained that the Second defendant was hurting him the Second defendant responded by lapping the two fingers on the left-hand which was already twisted behind the plaintiff's back and bending them.

10 The plaintiff said he again complained that “You hurting me man” to which he alleges the Second defendant responded “You hear say I don't like all you Nevis people” and then informed the mystery-man to

11 “let him go to me”.

12 In continuation the plaintiff said the Second defendant then kept his the plaintiff's left-hand (and arm) behind his back held his breeches and had him up on his toes going to the Police Station and the plaintiff contended further that all the way in this fashion to the Police Station the Second defendant said, “Me join Squad”.

13 The plaintiff testified further that other assaults were inflicted upon him on arrival at the Station — I shall not deal specifically with them as there are no specific injuries referred to in relation to this further allegation.

14 After arrival at the Station the plaintiff was sent by the Second defendant in company with the witness a young Constable — James Stephen to bring the car to the Police Station. This seems to me a strange behaviour on the part of the Second defendant — if the Second defendant felt abe to trust the plaintiff with a young Constable to have the plaintiff's car brought to the Station why did he not in the beginning direct the plaintiff to drive to the Station when the plaintiff refused to give his name or to leave his car.

15 The plaintiff alleged further that having been accosted at or about 10:00 a.m. he was not released from the Police Station until 1:30 p.m. when he was granted his own bail — thus alleging that he was falsely imprisoned for 3 ¹/₂ hours.

16 The evidence for the defendants came from the Second defendant, Police Constable. James Stephen and Trevor Chapman a Charlestown businessman. The Second defendant agreed that there was an incident involving him and the plaintiff on the day in question at the place in question commencing at or about 11:15 a.m. His version of the events however are that being dressed in the regular uniform of a Police Constable having placed a traffic box to block entry to Main Street from Government Road at or about 8:15 a.m. on 11 ^th November, 1991 as the High Court was in session he became aware, after he had cleared a traffic congestion on the road adjacent to the Old Jewish Cemetery, that there were three vehicles parked on the southern side of Government Road. He said he walked towards these vehicles as traffic was building at the junction of Main Street and Government Road. In continuation the Second defendant said he cleared the traffic, ticketed two vehicles parked in front of P2056 now...