The State has been forking out an estimated $25 million per year to settle hundreds of judicial matters brought by members of the public against police and prisons officers.

Such matters, which deal with infringements of constitutional rights of individuals, include those that have been settled out of court. This estimated cost to the State includes payments to claimants, their lawyers and State’s lawyers.

Sources said that some 2,500 cases logged over a five-year period, from 2004 to now, have cost the State an estimated $100 million. Such cases include the recent order by the Court that the State pay the Sanatan Dharma Maha Sabha more than $2.6 million because of discrimination in denying the organisation a radio licence.

But the majority of cases requiring payouts leading to the multi-million dollar State legal bill results from what has been described by both Appeal and High Court judges as the ’barbaric behaviour’ of police and prison officers as regards members of the public and individuals in the State’s care.

As a result of the behaviour of these officers, prison inmates-both on death row and in Remand Yard-and members of the public have been compensated for a series of other infractions, including wrongful arrest, assault and battery, unlawful detention and malicious prosecution.

And despite warnings and appeals from judges that officers involved in such cases-as they come before the court-be investigated, sources said there are instances dating back to at least five years where nothing had been done.

The highest such award in the last five years went to a former prisoner, Perry Matthew, who collected close to a $1 million after he was incarcerated 409 days past the time he was to be detained in prison.

Matthew was arrested and charged for possession of marijuana for the purposes of trafficking on December 13, 1999. After some 35 court hearings, during which time he got legal aid, Matthew’s case was heard in the Magistrates’ Court on September 27, 2000. He denied the charged but was found guilty, convicted and fined $15,000 or 36 months hard labour. He had six weeks to pay the fine. He later filed for constitutional relief on December 9, 2004, as a result of the alleged failure by the Prison authorities to deliver his notice of appeal within the stipulated timeframe. On June 21, 2007, Justice Peter Jamadar delivered his ruling and ordered he be paid: $6,000-for breach of the constitutional rights per se, $58,424-loss of earnings during the period of unconstitutional detention, $350,000-compensation for distress and inconvenience suffered during the unconstitutional detention. The three figures attracted interest at the rate of 12 per cent per annum.

Most recently Justice Andre des Vignes ordered the State to pay $243,848, in damages to ex-inmate Sean Wallace who received a severe beating at the hands of prison officers while jailed. Wallace, 44, of Santa Cruz, was incarcerated at the Port of Spain Prison on March 17, 2008, where he was serving a 30-month jail term. Wallace, who was represented by attorneys Gerald Ramdeen and Mark Seepersad, in a sworn affivadit described in detail how he was beaten by several prison officers with a ’riot staff’ and subsequently rushed to the Port of Spain General Hospital’s Casualty Department.

In awarding the payment, Justice des Vignes expressed alarm at the treatment meted out towards Wallace by prison authorities. Noting that police and prison officers were abusing their power and the courts were now having to step in to order that victims be compensated, des Vignes also ordered that a copy of his judgment in Wallace’s case be forwarded to the Commissioner of Prisons and to the office of the Director of Public Prosecutions.

’It appears to this Court that the message is not getting through to the rank and file of officers who are entrusted with the responsibilities of police officers or prison officers. The uncontroverted evidence of the Claimant (Wallace) in this matter paints a disgusting picture of depraved and inhuman treatment of the Claimant,’ Justice des Vignes said.

Questioning whether any investigation had begun into the attack on Wallace, des Vignes was told that, as of June 24, 2009, some 16 months later, ’an investigation had not yet been conducted.’

’This suggests to me that this incident is either considered unimportant or at least, very low on the priority list of the Commissioner of Prisons.

’It is not surprising, therefore, to find that the abuses continue unabated...’ Justice des Vignes said.

But the question still remains: what is being done by the relevant authorities to curb such instances of abuse? What is the status of investigations into allegations by inmates of their rights being infringed by police and prison officers?

Investigations showed that several of the officers named in judgments have moved up in rank within the police and prison service-copies of the relevant judgments have been forwarded to the office of the Commissioner of Police for further investigation. In several instanced, judges have called upon the State to ensure the offending officers ’be made to bear personally in equal shares, without calling upon the taxpayer to foot the bill.’

Contacted for a comment on the latest judgment against his officers-where the judge ruled in favour of Wallace-Commissioner of Prisons John Rougier, who is currently on vacation, said:

’I can say a number of them (officers) are being investigated but outside of that I cannot say anything more.’

He said further questions should be directed to Acting Commissioner of Police James Philbert.

Efforts to reach Philbert were unsuccessful.

Judges’ Comments

’The Court recognises that the duties of police officers are often stressful and dangerous. Officers are called upon to make quick and difficult decisions. They are not infallible and can make mistakes. The conduct of PC (name called), however, was deliberate. His conduct demonstrated a callous disregard for the rule of law....the behaviour of PC (name called) is far more contemptible...it is a clear cut case of malicious and unconstitutional abuse of police power....’

-Justice Maureen Rajnauth-Lee in a 16-page ruling delivered on February 14, 2008, in the matter of Siewchand Ramanoop against the Attorney General.

’Members of the police force seeking to combat crime in modern Trinidad and Tobago face constant danger. They are often under-resourced and carry out their duties in stressful conditions. Theirs is a difficult task. It involves direct contact with citizens, both those suspected of criminal activity as well as victims of crime...If the police are to be effective in their efforts to maintain law and order , they must act firmly and decisively....In this case, they failed to do so. Instead, they acted in gross breach of discipline and behaved in an oppressive and arbitrary manner...’

- Former Justice Christopher Hamel-Smith in a 19-page ruling delivered on July 31, 2002, in the matter of Kenton Sylvester against the Attorney General, two Corporals and three Constables.

’In the circumstances, the Court is of the view that the defendants (five Prison officers) have clearly attempted to distort the facts to concoct evidence to mislead the court. The Court is therefore unable to accept their evidence because it is riddled with several material inconsistencies....The defendants have failed to establish that there were circumstances that justified their use of force....This was a most vicious attack that resulted in the plaintiff (Morris Kenny) being rendered unconscious....’

- Justice Joseph Tam in a 15-page ruling delivered on March 11, 2002, in the matter of Morris Kenny against five prison officers and the Attorney General

Some cases and judgments

1. Sookdeo Harricharan - False imprisonment ($50,000) and malicious prosecution ($75,000).

Judgment delivered on December 19, 2006, by then Justice Lennox Deyalsingh

2. Rajesh Ravi Harry - General damages for false imprisonment,assault and battery including aggravated damages (100,000),Special damages (16,000) Exemplary damages (40,000)

Judgment delivered on July 24, 2009, by Justice Devindra Rampersad

3. Morris Kenny -Aggravated damages ($50,000), exemplary damages ($60,000).

Judgment delivered on March 11, 2002, by Justice Joseph Tam

4. Martin Reed -Assault and battery (65,000), exemplary damages (45,000).

Judgment delivered on June 6, 2007, by Justice Judith Jones

5. Michael Bullock - Aggravated damages ($130,000), exemplary damages ($50,000).

Judgment delivered on February 9, 2009, by Master Paray -Durity

6. Siewchand Ramanoop - Exemplary damages ($60,000).

Judgment delivered on February 14, 2008, by Justice Maureen Rajnauth-Lee