Morgan, Kenneth v Attorney General of Jamaica

• Jurisdiction: Jamaica
• Judge: Campbell J.
• Judgment Date: 04 September 2002
• Judgment citation (vLex): [2002] 9 JJC 0403
• Court: Supreme Court (Jamaica)
• Docket Number: SUIT NO. C.L. 1995/M076
• Date: 04 September 2002

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF JUDICATURE OF JAMAICA

IN COMMON LAW

SUIT NO. C.L. 1995/M076

BETWEEN

KENNETH MORGAN

PLAINTIFF

AND

ATTORNEY GENERAL OF JAMAICA

DEFENDANT

MALICIOUS PROSECUTION - Cocaine - Possession and dealing with cocaine - Essentials for establishing a case of malicious prosecution - Whether reasonable and probable cause for launching case against plaintiff - Crown Proceedings Act

Campbell J

1 The plaintiffs claim is against the defendant to recover damages for malicious prosecution for that on the 4 ^th day of April 1991 at Operations Headquarters at 230 Spanish Town Road. The Plaintiff was arrested and charged with possession and dealing with cocaine by Det. Cpl. A.R. Anderson of the Police Narcotics Division and following a trial was acquitted of the charge without being called to answer in his defence.

2 The defendant is the Attorney General of Jamaica, in whose name the suit was brought pursuant to the provisions of the Crown Proceedings Act.

3 The action arose out of a search and consequent arrest of occupants of premises at la Dillsbury Avenue, in St. Andrew after the police, armed with a written authorization under the Dangerous Drugs Act, found two parcels containing cocaine on the premises. The main witness as to the events leading up to the search was Det. Sgt Anderson, who testified that in April 1991 he was attached to the Narcotics Division, 230 Spanish Town Road. He said that on the 18 ^th April 1991 whilst on duty, he had received information pertaining to la Dillsbury Road and a surveillance of that property. To better carry out this surveillance, he dressed in "ragged clothing, short pants and unkempt hair". He assumed positions from which point he could observe la Dillsbury. He said he observed the plaintiff on that premises. He saw the plaintiff and an occupant of the premises pass transparent parcels containing white substance to persons who would approach the property and give something to either the plaintiff or the other person. Sgt. Anderson sought and obtained written authorisation to effect a search on the property. He said the police party arrived at the premises in an unmarked police vehicle, which he drove.

4 The Sgt. evidence as to what transpired next was the source of very vigorous cross-examination by Dennis Daly, Q.C.

5 The Sgt. says that on his arrival, he saw a red Uno drove off; the driver was the plaintiff. The officer said he signaled the plaintiff to stop but he sped off. On entry to the premises the two parcels containing the drugs were found. On an enquiry as to the whereabouts of the plaintiff, the Sgt. testified he was told that he had just driven off. The plaintiff in his testimony has denied that he was there on that day and has accused the police of telling lies. He said that on the 19 ^th April 1991 at about 7:00am, he had visited the house but had left about 7:30–8:00am for Bellevue Heights and had busied himself in preparation of some farm products for export, and slept at his farm house with the lady who is now is wife. The following morning he had taken the produce to the agricultural place on Spanish Town Rd., and took a meal for his children at about 4:00–5:00pm. It was on his arrival at that time he realised that the police had been there and that the adults and several of his children had been arrested.

6 The plaintiff testified that he was a Farmer, and Contractor of 2a Bellevue Heights, in St. Catherine. He testified that, in April 1991 he lived at Collie Smith Drive, in Arnett Gardens and that he used to live at la Dillsbury Avenue with...