Stephens v The Attorney-General
| Jurisdiction | Jamaica |
| Judge | Zacca, C.J. |
| Judgment Date | 04 February 1988 |
| Docket Number | Not Available |
| Court | Supreme Court (Jamaica) |
| Date | 04 February 1988 |
Supreme Court
Zacca, C.J.
Not Available
R.NA. Henriques, Q. C. and Anthony Levy for the plaintiff.
R. Langrin, Q. C. and Douglas Leys for the defendant.
Damages - Exemplary Damages — Illegality of detention order — Whether case a proper one for the award of exemplary damages— Compensatory damages — Factors to be taken into account when applying in Jamaica decisions on damages from other jurisdictions — Inflation to be taken into account — Effect on award.
This is an assessment of damages, to which the plaintiff is entitled, the defendant having admitted liability.
The plaintiff claims damages both compensatory and exemplary, for illegal and wrongful detention and imprisonment. He asserts that he was denied his constitutional rights of freedom of movement and was incarcerated in detention on grounds which were false, fraudulent and deliberately concocted in order to furnish reasons for the plaintiff's detention and unlawful imprisonment.
The plaintiff, Earl Patrick Stephens is a Member of Parliament and Minister of Government.
At the time of his detention in 1976, he was a Manufacturer, land developer and was involved in a promotion company. He was also a member of the action team of the executive of the Jamaica Labour Party.
He is married with four children. In 1976 the children ranged in ages from 11 to 16 years.
The uncontroverted facts are these. On the 19th June 1976 the Government of Jamaica declared a State of Emergency, by the Governor General issuing a proclamation purporting to exercise powers under section 26(4) of the Jamaican Constitution Order in Council, 1962.
On the said 19th June 1976 the plaintiff was attending a Jamaica Labour Party Conference at the Holiday Inn Hotel in Montego Bay. At about 3 p.m. the plaintiff was taken by the police to the Coral Gardens Police Station in Montego Bay where he was questioned. From there he was taken to the Old Montego Bay Airport occupied by army personnel and placed in a cell — 10 ft by 12 ft. The cell was exceedingly hot. At about 10.30 p.m. the plaintiff was taken under heavy police and military guard to Camp in Kingston by a Jamaica Defence Force aircraft. The plaintiff was then taken to an area of Camp known as Red Fence where he was stripped of his clothes and searched. At about 1.00 a.m. on the morning of 20th June 1976 he was locked in cell No. 8 and for the first time since his detention was given a meal of bully beef and bread. Cell No. 8 measured about 9 ft. by 10 ft. In the cell was a wooden bench with a thin foam mattress, a small table and a dim light in the ceiling. Toilet facilities were provided outside some distance from the cell. The plaintiff was not allowed to communicate with his family or his attorney. Those in detention were allowed out for a total of one hour each day.
Although detained on the 20th June 1976, it was not until the 25th June 1976 that the plaintiff was served with a detention order. On the 28th June 1976 the plaintiff was served with a Notice setting out the grounds for his detention.
The Notice read:
“Whereas the Order under Regulation ( 23) or (34) or (35) has been made against you Earle Patrick Stephens notice is hereby given that
(a) the aforesaid Order has been made on the following rounds: concerned in the preparation of acts prejudicial to public safety and public order.
(b) You may make objections to the Order to the Tribunal established under Regulations 39 of the Emergency Powers Regulations 1976.”
On the 2nd July 1976 the plaintiff was served with another detention order and another Notice in similar teens. On the 12th July 1976 the plaintiff was served with particulars relating to his detention. The particulars read:
“Whereas an Order under Regulation 35 has been made against you Patrick Stephens set out hereunder the following particulars:
That from information received in March 1975 you seduced a member of the Social Development Commission to get him to remove Government files from which information was extracted and used unlawfully. That in June 1976 you instructed the aforementioned officer to ascertain and divulge the date of the visit to Jamaica of a Head of State.”
On the night of the 27th June 1976 the plaintiff was interrogated between the hours of 7.20 p.m. and 11.50 p.m. He was again interrogated on the night of the 30th June 1976 between the hours of 9.30 p.m. and 1.00 a.m.
On the second occasion he was handcuffed with a ratchet type handcuff with a chain. This chain was pulled so that the ratchet became very close against his wrist. The plaintiff was also placed to sit on a chair with a peculiar shaped back which is designed to press into the g small of the back. His complaints about the tightness of the handcuff and the chair pressing into his back were ignored.
On one occasion the plaintiff was placed in solitary confinement for three or four days.
An application made to the Review Board was heard on the 15th October 1976. The plaintiff gave evidence and the Board requested to hear evidence from Captain Marsh. Soon after, on the 22nd October 1976, the plaintiff was served with an Order revoking his detention Order. It is reasonable to infer that this resulted from the hearing before the Review Board.
However, he was not allowed freedom of movement. On that same day, a Confinement to Place of Residence Order was served on him. He was restricted to his house between the hours of 8.00 p.m. each day and 6.00 a.m. of the succeeding day. Although allowed to go to his place of business between the hours of 6.00 a.m. and 8.00 p.m. he was restricted to a certain route as a result of a Restriction of access to area Order which was served on him also on the 22nd October 1976.
The plaintiff remained under house arrest until the 15th March 1977 when the Restriction of access to area Order was withdrawn.
During his detention at Red Fence, the plaintiff was allowed visits by his wife regularly but was allowed to see his children only on one occasion.
Despite the lifting of the access to area Order, the plaintiff felt threatened and did not feel free to move about. He was concerned about his freedom as the State of Emergency was still in existence at that time. The plaintiff stated that his wife and children were uncomfortable and a decision was taken to leave Jamaica. This decision was encouraged by the Assistant Commissioner of Police, Mr. L. R. Trought. Whilst in the United States, he was interrogated by the F.B.I. This was as a result of his detention in Jamaica.
He later sold his house for $75,000.00. The replacement cost of this house would be 1.5 million dollars. He does not now own a house. His decision to leave Jamaica and to sell his house was determined as a result of his detention and his fear for his freedom. However, no damages will be awarded in respect of this.
As a result of his detention, his business suffered severely. His block factory had to be sold. There was a loss of $50,000.00. The Promotion Company incurred a debt of $17,000.00.
He also incurred legal fees of $7,000.00, $10,000.00 and $19,000.00. Plaintiff's economic position had severely worsened as a result of his detention. He no longer enjoyed the facilities which existed prior to his detention. Plaintiff admitted that the economy of the country had deteriorated in 1976.
I turn now to consider the quantum of damages which should be awarded. There is also a claim for exemplary damages. Do the facts of this case fall within the categories laid down by Lord Devlin in Rookes v. Barnard, [1964], 2 A.C. 1129 for the granting of exemplary damages Lord Devlin...
To continue reading
Request your trial