Abraham v The Attorney General of Anguilla et Al

• Jurisdiction: Anguilla
• Court: High Court (Saint Christopher, Nevis And Anguilla)
• Judge: Saunders, J.
• Judgment Date: 06 October 1999
• Neutral Citation: AI 1999 HC 7
• Docket Number: Civil Suit No. 29 of 1999
• Date: 06 October 1999

High Court

Saunders, J.

Civil Suit No. 29 of 1999

Abraham

and

The Attorney General of Anguilla et al

Appearances:

Mr. T. Astaphan for the plaintiff

Mr. I. Greene for the defendants

Tort - Wrongful imprisonment — Damages — Whether element constituting exemplary damages should be specified.

Facts: Minor taken from school by police officer and detained at police station - Whether minor wrongfully imprisoned - Whether constitutional rights breached.

Held: The minor was wrongfully imprisoned. His fundamental right to personal liberty had been contravened. He was entitled to exemplary damages. Judgment in the sum of $7,000 paid into court for benefit of minor until age of majority.

Saunders, J.

1 This case illustrates how sensitive a police officer's job can be especially when dealing with young children and with allegations of wrong-doing made against fellow police officers.

2 Jose Abraham the plaintiff is just eleven years of age. Diana his sister used to live with him at one time. Diana turned 16 years old in February, 1999. Their mother is Mrs. Agnita Gumbs, formerly Alexander.

3 While Diana was still under the legal age of sexual consent in Anguilla, Jose claims to have witnessed her having sex with Randy Javois, a police officer.

4 Jose told his mother what he had observed. Mrs. Gumbs made a report to Sgt. Donalee Richardson. Shortly before that report was made, Diana herself had made a report to Sgt. Richardson of rape by her stepfather.

5 On Tuesday the 16 ^th February, 1999, Sgt. Richardson thought that she should carry out some investigation of these two reports. She decided to interview Jose. Early that morning she telephoned the Principal of the school that Jose attended. She explained to the Principal that she needed to ask Jose a few questions. The Principal promised to check to see if Jose was in school.

6 As it turned out, that was a bad day for the Principal. She was in fact rushing off to a meeting at the Education Department when Sgt. Richardson spoke with her on the telephone. At about 9.00AM when the Sergeant arrived at the school she had not gotten around to checking to see whether Jose was indeed at school. The Sergeant actually caught up with her just as she was about to leave the school compound to attend her meeting.

7 The Principal invited the Sergeant to see for herself whether Jose was in school. She gave directions to where Jose's class was located and she hurried off to her meeting.

8 The Police Officer followed the directions given to her. She approached Colin Johnson, the only teacher in the area. The Sergeant told Mr. Johnson that she was looking for Jose; that the police had a problem with Jose and that she wanted to take Jose with her for a while. The officer further stated that Jose's teacher was not there and that she had already spoken with the Principal.

9 Mr. Johnson allowed the Sergeant to leave with Jose. Mr. Johnson in fact does not have the authority to grant such permission. He was actually misled into thinking that permission to take Jose out of school had already been granted to the Sergeant by his Principal.

10 The evidence that I accept is that Jose went voluntarily with the Sergeant. Jose himself said in his testimony that at the school, and also while journeying in the car, the Sergeant was nice towards him. The Sergeant was not dressed in uniform. She drove her own personal vehicle. She chatted with Jose about his marbles. He said he was not afraid. Notwithstanding all this, it is a serious matter for a police officer to take a child of tender years from school. I do not believe that Sergeant Richardson obtained the permission of Jose's mother to do so. Nor did she obtain the express consent of the Principal although, in all the circumstances, I can understand why the officer might have erroneously concluded that the Principal's consent was implied.

11 The Sergeant carried Jose to the Welfare Office. There, in the presence of Clive Smith, a Welfare Officer, Jose was questioned about what he had observed in relation to Diana.

12 Jose's evidence before me is that while giving a statement to Mr. Smith and to Sgt. Richardson, the police officer became mean and angry towards him and he was constantly told what he should and should not say in his statement. His evidence was given in a credible manner. I believe much of what he stated. I am however hesitant to accept that he was bullied by the Sergeant and by the Welfare Officer to falsify the statement that he wished to give and that he did in fact give to them. I believe that the Sergeant took Jose from school and questioned him at the Welfare Office in all good faith.

13 Jose's statement was read over to him. He agreed that what was read over to him was correct and he signed it. The statement that he made at the Welfare Office heavily implicated police officer Randy Javois in the sexual acts with Diana. The statement also made mention of another youngster called Bobby who, according to Jose, could corroborate his version of what he had witnessed between Javois and Diana.

14 The statement at the Welfare Office was completed at or close to noon. Jose was not then returned to his school. Instead he was taken to the police station. The sergeant's explanation for this was that because the school was then on its luncheon break, she wanted to keep Jose until she could personally place him back in the custody of his teacher. Curiously enough, the Station Diary records that Jose was brought to the station “for questioning”.

15 Mr. Smith, the Welfare Officer, gave a different explanation. He said that he and the Sergeant had agreed between themselves that the Sergeant's investigations might be compromised...