Needham, Herman v Attorney General of Jamaica
| Jurisdiction | Jamaica |
| Judge | BROOKS, J. |
| Judgment Date | 10 April 2003 |
| Judgment citation (vLex) | [2003] 4 JJC 1001 |
| Court | Supreme Court (Jamaica) |
| Date | 10 April 2003 |
| Docket Number | SUIT NO. C.L. 2000/N037 |
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF JUDICATURE OF JAMAICA
IN COMMON LAW
DAMAGES - False imprisonment - Malicious prosecution - Aggravated damages - Special damages - Crown Proceedings Act
In this action the Plaintiff claims Damages against the Defendant pursuant to the Crown Proceedings Act for False Imprisonment and Malicious Prosecution.
The action arises from a criminal prosecution initiated on the 3rd September, 1996 when a Constable Mo watt, a member of the Jamaica Constabulary Force arrested and charged the Plaintiff for certain offences. The Plaintiff was acquitted of these charges on 23 rd June, 1999 when the prosecution offered no further evidence against him.
At the commencement of this hearing counsel for the parties informed the Court that the matter would be dealt with as a contested assessment.
The evidence in support of the claim came from the Plaintiff who testified that he was an employee of the National Commercial Bank as at 3 rd September, 1996. On that day at about 9:30 a.m. he was given certain instructions (he does not say by whom) and as a result he went to the Fraud Squad at the Central Police Station.
At the Criminal Investigation Branch office of that station he was questioned by Constable Mowatt and thereafter (at about 4:00 p.m.) he was arrested and charged. After he was arrested he was taken from the Criminal Investigation Branch office and placed in an enclosed section called a "holding area". This was not a cell and he was the only person there.
He was offered bail and at about 6:00 p.m. that day he took up his bail and was released.
He testified that thereafter he went to Court on five or six occasions in respect of the charges. The police officer only attended court once up to that date and the case was eventually adjourned sine die on 15 th November, 1996.
That situation proved unsatisfactory and the Plaintiff applied to the Court for the case to be relisted and for No Order to be made for an indictment. As a result summonses were issued for him to attend the Half Way Tree Resident Magistrate's Court, on the same charges, on 28 th February, 1997. The prosecution did not accede to his request and the case proceeded to trial. It eventually ended in his acquittal as mentioned above. During the period up to acquittal he attended Court on some twenty five occasions, by his estimate, going to Court approximately once per month. He said that the police officer Constable Mowatt never attended Court during this period.
During the entire period from the date of arrest to acquittal Mr. Needham's employers, who were the virtual complainants in the prosecution, had suspended him from duty without pay. He was never reinstated to duty and in October, 1999 his post was by mutual agreement treated as being made redundant and he received a payment from the bank representing his salary to 31 st August, 1999 as well as other matters. He released the bank from all liability and they parted company.
That was however not the end of Mr. Needham's woes.
He testified that he obtained employment at a Credit Union at a salary which was $230,000.00 per annum less than the salary which he was earning at the bank before his arrest. He said that at first he was afraid to apply for employment in the financial sector because the information of his arrest would be a significant handicap to the prospect of employment in that area. He says that while working at the Credit Union he applied for employment at three banks but received no reply.
His other attempt at securing other employment in the financial sector brought a request that a finger print check be done. 1I. s caused I im not to pursue the matter. Mr. Golding asked that the Court infer that this result was a direct consequence of the wrongful prosecution, but the documents (Exhibits 4 and 5) on which he relies are at best equivocal in this regard.
Claim for Special Damages
As a result of his being forced to accept remuneration at a clerical level when he was previously at the supervisory level, he claims lost earnings at the rate of $230,000.00 per annum for the period 1 st September, 1999 (the date to which he was paid by the bank) to the date...
To continue reading
Request your trial