Richards (Walton) v Woman Detective Corporal Campbell et Al
| Jurisdiction | Jamaica |
| Judge | Williams, J. |
| Judgment Date | 10 March 2009 |
| Judgment citation (vLex) | [2009] 2 JJC 1901 |
| Court | Supreme Court (Jamaica) |
| Date | 10 March 2009 |
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF JUDICATURE OF JAMAICA
IN CIVIL DIVISION
Trespass to property-Conversion and/or Dentinue — False Imprisonment — Whether claimant entitled to aggravated and exemplary damages
Background
On the 17 th of January 1996 a police party went to premises at No 24 East Avenue, Greenwich Farm, Kingston occupied and owned by Walton Richards the claimant. The party was let by Detective Corporal M. Campbell (as she then was having since been promoted to sergeant).
When the party left they removed a white Dodge Caravan motor vehicle.
The claimant was told to attend the Central Police Station where the vehicle was being taken and he did so.
It is arising from this incident that the claimant brought proceedings in January 1996. He claims this vehicle and an engine was unlawfully seized and/or detained and/or converted and has still not been returned despite requests. He also asserts he was falsely imprisoned for six (6) hours.
He now seeks the return of the motor vehicle and engine or alternatively the sum to replace it.
He seeks damages for loss of use of his vehicle. He seeks aggravated and exemplary damages also.
The Evidence
For the claimant
In his witness statement/ evidence-in-chief, the claimant described himself simply as a businessman with premises at 24 East Avenue, Greenwich Farm, Kingston. He stated that the police personnel unlawfully and maliciously and without reasonable and/or probable cause trespassed unto his premises and carried away his motor vehicle and engine. He exhibited a copy of an import entry clearly naming him as the importer of the van. This vehicle was not returned to him despite repeated requests orally and in writing for its return. He exhibited one letter dated January 29, 1996 addressed to Detective Corporal Campbell from attorneys acting on his behalf requesting an immediate return of the van.
He stated that he was taken into custody and released after six (6) hours without being charged.
He maintained that he has been greatly injured in his reputation and business. He was deprived of his liberty and the use and enjoyment of his motor vehicle. He suffered great embarrassment and humiliation. The police action was arbitrary and high handed and in total disregard of his rights.
In his viva-voce evidence he explained that he is a custom broker/clerk as well as a freight forwarding agent.
He was permitted to amplify his witness statement and explained that when the police visited his premises and removed the van. he was instructed to drive himself to Central Police Station behind the police party. It was his impression that he was to be locked up "and not get out 'till he went to court". He explained further that the premises he owns, housed a garage as well where vehicles came to be fixed. The van was being worked on along with a BMW and licence plates found in the van were for the BMW-they were not affixed to the van.
He was able to describe the process necessary to clear the van off the wharf. He explained the value of the van was one hundred and seventy thousand dollars (SI 70,000.00) and when duty is added the value increased to three hundred and fifty thousand dollars ($350,000.00), the cost for storage would be a further increase to four hundred and twenty thousand dollars (5420,000.00). There was no documentation to support these figures.
His cross-examination began with him explaining the steps necessary to apply for an import licence. He later went on to speak of the documents needed to clear a vehicle and how each could be procured.
He said he had been working as a custom broker for twenty-two (22) years before obtaining his own licence in 1992.
His focus has turned to freight forwarding and his custom broker's licence has been turned in.
He agreed that he knew a Enid Miller for whom he had worked for a number of years. He also agreed that she shipped the dodge caravan, and it was sent to him; from the United States. He said it was as payment for work he had done for her for a period of over a year without charge.
The invoice related to the van was in his name, however the title for the van was in her name.
No money was exchanged for the vehicle. It was a verbal agreement he had made with Mrs. Miller.
His recollection of the 1 st defendant's visit to the premises is that she just came and seized the vehicle without showing him anything or affording him an opportunity to show her anything.
He however was able to call his attorney before proceeding to the station with the documents he deemed necessary. He showed them to a senior officer at the station as the 1 st defendant did not arrive until later.
He said he found her discourteous and felt afraid of her because of her attitude.
He claimed he was at the station for hours till eventually he left. He got back his documents before leaving but not the vehicle. He went back to the station on three (3) occasions about it, but to no avail.
He acknowledged that on that visit to the station on the 17 th of January, he was not told he was going to be charged. He was not locked in a holding area — he sat in an office. He was asked if he was told he would be placed in custody to which he responded, "not really".
When asked if he was ever told he would not be allowed to leave, he indicated he was told she didn't think he was going to leave that day. He did not ask to leave, he was not prevented from leaving and he did not ask if he was being held in custody.
He admitted that when he went to the station he was told that Mrs. Miller had made a report that he hadn't paid for the vehicle or, in his words, "something like that". He made no attempt to contact her after learning of the complaint. He however refuted suggestions that no arrangements existed between himself and Mrs. Miller. He also disagreed that the 1 st defendant did anything more than take the motor vehicle from the premises. Further, Mrs. Miller he asserted did not accompany the police to his premises.
When re-examined he claimed a senior officer had told the 1 th defendant she was on her own as that officer didn't see any reason why the motor vehicle had been taken from the premises.
For the defendants
In her witness statement/evidence-in-chief, the 1 st defendant, explained that while on duty on that Wednesday 17 th of January, 1996 a Mrs. Enid Miller-Cushnie attended and made a report. This lady was not called as a witness but her allegations made became admissible in seeking to establish the 1 st defendant's state of mind and reason for believing she had to act the way she did.
The report was lo the effect that Mrs. Miller-Cushnie had shipped a vehicle to the claimant with the understanding that it would be cleared upon her return to Jamaica and transferred to the claimant upon his paying for it. The 1 st defendant asserted that after recording the statement of Mrs. Miller-Cushnie she commenced her enquiries which led her to the premises of the claimant. She said that Mrs. Miller-Cushnie accompanied her and identified the vehicle.
The claimant is reported to have said, "the vehicle is mine cause it was sent to me and I used my money to clear it".
The 1 st defendant insisted that she was shown documents by the claimant however in the circumstances she felt she should take possession of the van pending proof of ownership. The vehicle was placed in safe custody at the Central Police Station while enquiries into the matter commenced.
She found licence plates on the van which belonged to another vehicle. The title for the van was still in the name of Mrs. Miller Cushnie.
With the information she obtained the 1 st defendant felt it necessary to seek guidance — she wrote to the Detective Inspector in charge of her division requesting a ruling on the matter from the Director of Public Prosecution. She then sent the file in the matter and all the original documents she had received to the Director of Public Prosecutions.
She said the claimant never made any requests of her either orally or in writing for the return of the van neither is she aware of any such being received by the Fraud Squad.
She agreed that the claimant was questioned and a statement recorded from him which accounted for his being at the station for no more than two (2) hours.
She exhibited statements allegedly recorded from Mrs. Miller Cushnie along with one Alfred Clayton a custom officer. The defendants served notice of their intention to tender these statements into evidence along with the letter written to the Detective Inspector in charge of the Fraud Squad requesting the matter be referred to the Director of Public Prosecutions. This letter is dated 31 st of March 1996 — a little over two (2) months after the vehicle was seized.
Under cross-examination she admitted the vehicle was parked on the compound of the C.I.B. Headquarters and is unable to say if it is still there.
She considered that she had relinquished her possession of it when it was left in safe custody at the station.
She admitted the vehicle was properly and lawfully imported into Jamaica in the claimant's name.
She however asserted her suspicion that the claimant had committed offences of forgery and uttering forged documents relating to the import entry form and this formed a basis for her investigations. The fact that plates for another vehicle was on the van also was the subject of investigations.
She acknowledged that to date no instructions had been received from the Director of Public Prosecutions...
To continue reading
Request your trial