Kerron Campbell v Kenroy Watson and Attorney General of Jamaica

• Jurisdiction: Jamaica
• Judge: Sykes J (Ag)
• Judgment Date: 06 January 2005
• Judgment citation (vLex): [2005] 1 JJC 0601
• Court: Supreme Court (Jamaica)
• Date: 06 January 2005

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF JUDICATURE OF JAMAICA

CIVIL DIVISION

BETWEEN

KERRON CAMPBELL

CLAIMANT

AND

KENROY WATSON

FIRST DEFENDANT

AND

ATTORNEY GENERAL OF JAMAICA

SECOND DEFENDANT

Mr. Ainsworth Campbell for the claimant

Mr. Peter Wilson for the first and second defendants

FALSE IMPRISONMENT - MALICIOUS PROSECUTION

-

Sykes J (Ag)

1 1. Mr. Kerron Campbell's ride past the Admiral Town Police Station on a bicycle on May 12, 1997 at about 7:30pm ended quite disastrously. By the end of the evening, he had a broken leg, courtesy of Detective Corporal Kenroy Watson, the first defendant. The issue of liability on the claim for assault and battery has been resolved. The defendants admitted liability at the case management conference held before Smith, Gloria J on October 27, 2003. The quantum of damages was to be assessed and that was done during this trial.

2 2. In addition to breaking Mr. Campbell's leg, Detective Watson charged Mr. Campbell with the offences of possession of ganja, assaulting police and resisting arrest. The police officer testified that he stopped the claimant when he saw him riding a bicycle that had no lights. He searched the claimant and found two parcels of vegetable matter resembling ganja. The officer testified that after he arrested the claimant, and while taking him to the police station, the claimant began to resist, a struggle developed and it was during that struggle that he struck the claimant with the baton. This scuffle led to the charges of resisting arrest and assaulting police.

3 3. Detective Watson did not take the vegetable matter he claimed to have found to the forensic laboratory. There is no evidence that he gave any instructions for that to be done. Shortly after he arrested the claimant, he went on six months( vacation leave. While the detective was enjoying a bucolic existence, the charges against the claimant were dismissed on July 22, 1997. This dismissal laid the foundation for the present action for false imprisonment and malicious prosecution.

4 4. The issues, therefore are, the quantum of damages for assault and battery and whether the detective falsely imprisoned and maliciously prosecuted the claimant.

False imprisonment

5 5. The tort of false imprisonment is committed whenever a person is detained against his will without legal justification (see Carey P (Ag) Flamming v Myers (1989) 26 J.LR. 525, 527C ). The restraint must be total. In this case, it is agreed that Mr. Campbell was arrested and taken to the police station by Detective Watson. He was totally restrained. The sole question is whether this action was lawful.

6 6. It is agreed that on the night of March 12, 1997, the claimant rode a bicycle that did not have any light. It was this infraction of the law that caused Mr. Watson to stop the claimant. This was not the breach of the law for which the claimant was arrested; it was the vegetable matter resembling ganja that was allegedly found by the detective that led to the claimant's arrest. Mr. Watson testified that Mr. Campbell was walking peacefully, on his way to the police station. There were some officious bystanders. They incited Mr. Campbell. He became a "new" man. He began to resist the police officer. It was during this resistance that the detective said that he struck the claimant. Here endeth the detective's version.

7 7. Mr. Campbell's account is quite different. He stated that Mr. Watson was standing at the gate of the Admiral Town Police Station. He said that the detective asked him who owned the bicycle. The detective, in effect, asked the claimant to produce evidence to support his account Mr. Watson took the bicycle from him. He went home, got the receipt and returned. When he returned Mr. Watson was standing with two other police officers: Mr. Benjie and Mr. Porteous. On his return, he saw Mr. Watson holding on to a bicycle. Two men were standing nearby. Mr. Watson and the two other police officers took the two men into the station yard. The men came back out of the station yard without the bicycle.

8 8. The claimant says after he had been waiting on Mr. Watson for some time, he eventually told Mr. Watson that he had the receipt and the light. Mr. Watson's response would cause sailors to blush. The claimant would have none of this rudeness. He told Mr. Watson that he should not speak to him like that and he should tell his (Watson's) son what he told the claimant. At that point, according to Mr. Campbell, Constable Porteous stoked the passions of Mr. Watson. Constable Porteous said, "Don't mek the bwoy talk to you that way!" It was then Mr. Watson hit the claimant with the baton. The claimant fell to the ground. He tried to get up but fell. Mr. Watson and Constable Porteous took the claimant to the guardroom.

9 9. Mr. Watson took ice to place on Mr. Campbell's foot. Mr. Campbell rebuffed this first aid measure. There is an inconsistency in the claimant's evidence regarding when his foot was placed in a cast by doctors at the Kingston Public Hospital (KPH). In examination in chief he said that Mr. Watson and Mr. Benjie took him to KPH. His foot was placed in cast and discharged the same night.

10 10. In cross-examination, he said that when he was taken to the hospital by the police he was not treated. He was taken back to the police station without a cast on his leg. He changed this to say that it was after Miss Pearl Hylton (mother in law) bailed him that he went to KPH. This inconsistency is not material and does not affect his credit on this point.

Analysis of the evidence

11 11. I have examined the account given by the police officer. It is not internally consistent. He said that he gave the...