Attorney General v Johnson (Leroy)

• Jurisdiction: Jamaica
• Judge: FORTE, P.: , HARRISON, J.A. , HARRISON J.A. (AG.)
• Judgment Date: 02 April 2004
• Neutral Citation: JM 2004 CA 12
• Judgment citation (vLex): [2004] 4 JJC 0205
• Date: 02 April 2004
• Court: Court of Appeal (Jamaica)

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL

BEFORE:

THE HON. MR. JUSTICE FORTE, P THE HON. MR. JUSTICE HARRISON, J.A THE HON. MR. JUSTICE HARRISON J.A. (AG.)

BETWEEN

THE ATTORNEY-GENERAL

APPELLANT/DEFENDANT

AND

LEROY JOHNSON

RESPONDENT/PLAINTIFF

Susan Reid-Jones instructed by Director of State Proceedings for the Appellant

Aisha Mulendwe for the Respondent

TORT - False imprisonment - Unlawful assault - Summons to strike out actions - Whether actions brought outside of limitation period - Limitation of actions Act - Constabulary Force Act, s. 33

FORTE, P.:

1 The respondent brought an action in the Supreme Court against Cons. Ronald Thomas and the appellant jointly and each of them severally for false imprisonment and unlawful assault committed against him on or about the 3 ^rd day of January 1997.

2 On the 13 ^th December 2001, the appellant brought a summons in the Supreme Court to strike out the Action on the following ground:

"The actions for False Imprisonment and Assault be struck out and dismissed pursuant to Caption XVI, section III of the Statute of Limitations on the ground that they disclose ne reasonable cause of action as they are statute barred."

3 The summons was heard by Jones, J (Ag.) who ordered the summons to be struck out, and gave leave to appeal to this Court. At the hearing counsel for the respondent relied on dicta in Riches v. Director of Public Prosecutions [1973] 2 All E.R. 935, which found that a pleading may be struck out as disclosing no reasonable cause of action where the facts alleged fell outside of the limitation period.

4 Before us, the issue argued concerned whether or not the actions were brought outside of the limitation period. Counsel for the appellants however filed four grounds of appeal all of which related to the same issue. They read:

• "1. The learned Judge erred in law in holding, on the basis of Section 33 of the Constabulary Force Act, that all actions against a Constable when acting in the execution of his duty are deemed to be actions on the case with a limitation period of six (6) years.

• 2. The learned Judge erred in law by depriving the Defendant/Appellant of the Statutory Defence available to it.

• 3. The learned Judge erred in law in failing to acknowledge that Section 33 of the Constabulary Force Act is not concerned with statutory limitations on actions.

• 4. The learned Judge erred in law by failing to hold that any amendment to the law regarding the limitation periods applicable to police officers cannot be accomplished without clear and unambiguous words to that effect."

5 A good point of departure in determining the merit of these grounds is section 33...