Damon James and Jomal Mc Master v The Attorney General
| Jurisdiction | St Vincent and the Grenadines |
| Judge | Moise, M. |
| Judgment Date | 07 August 2018 |
| Neutral Citation | VC 2018 HC 53 |
| Date | 07 August 2018 |
| Court | High Court (Saint Vincent and the Grenadines) |
| Docket Number | Claim Number: SVGHCV2017/0002 |
EASTERN CARIBBEAN SUPREME COURT
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE
(CIVIL)
Moise, M.
Claim Number: SVGHCV2017/0002
Ms. Ashelle Morgan of Counsel for the Claimants
Mr. J-Lany Williams of Counsel for the Defendant
Damages - Assessment — False imprisonment — Whether claimants entitled to general and/or special damages
The claimants brought this action on 5 th January, 2017 for special damages arising from the destruction of a vessel and for general damages for wrongful imprisonment. Pursuant to an order of the Court dated 21 st March, 2017 the claimants were granted leave to amend the statement of claim and duly complied by 24 th March, 2017. The defendant was granted leave to file a defence by 26 th April, 2017 and failed to do so. Judgment in default was obtained by the claimant on 26 th September, 2017. An application to set aside the judgment in default was denied by me on 24 th January, 2018. In these circumstances the claimants now file their application for an assessment of the damages to which they are entitled.
The claimants allege that on 5 th January, 2016 at about 10:00pm they were returning from Canouan on the vessel “Angel”, which was owned by the 1 st Claimant. They stopped off near the coast of Bequia to refuel. Both claimants assert that it was dark and a large vessel appeared “out of nowhere” and collided with the right side of the boat. This vessel then circled and hit the left side of the claimants' vessel. Jomal Mc. Master indicates that it was at that point he realized that it was the coast guard who collided with their vessel. He insists that no indication was given prior to the collision that this boat was being operated by the coast guard.
According to the claimants, the officers of the coast guard fired shots and told them to put their hands in the air. They came on board the vessel and conducted a search, during which guns were pointed in the claimants' direction. Nothing illegal was found. The claimants' vessel was then towed to the coast guard base. They arrived at this base at approximately 3:00a.m. The claimants assert that they were taken to a holding area at the coast guard base where they were questioned and their responses recorded by the police. They were later transported to the Calliaqua Police Station where they remained until the following morning. They claim further, that at approximately 8 or 9am on 6 th January, 2016, they were taken back to the coast guard base where a further search of the vessel was conducted. Again nothing illegal was found. They were then taken to the Central Police Station and placed in holding cells.
Both claimants complained that the cells were in a very bad condition. There was a strong scent of urine and body odour. The 1 st Claimant states that there were bed bugs, roaches and rats in his cell. He states that he is a former police officer and this incident caused him embarrassment. He also asserts that he had never been in trouble with the law prior to that incident. The claimants state that they were denied a right to a phone call and were never questioned by the police during the period in which they were detained in these cells. They were released at approximately 4:00pm on Thursday 7 th January, 2017.
The 1 st claimant asserts that he returned to the coast guard base on a number of occasions to retrieve his vessel but was unsuccessful until 11 th January, 2016. He states that the vessel was badly damaged. However, he was given a form to sign in order to ensure that the vessel was released to him. This form, he states, contained a clause which indicates that the vessel was returned to him in good condition. He indicates however, that he pointed out to the officer with whom he communicated on that day that the boat was damaged, but was informed that the vessel would not be released until he signed the form. On that basis he signed the form and retrieved his vessel. It is his evidence that the boat was then towed to Howard's Marine for repairs on his instructions. These repairs were done over the course of a month and he presents an invoice to the court regarding the cost of repairs as well as the cost of towing the vessel to the premises of Howard's Marine.
On the basis of these facts, the 1st claimant claims special damages for repairs to the boat and other associated costs. He also claims loss of use, as he has indicated that his main source of income is derived from tours conducted with this vessel during the tourist season. Both claimants claim damages for false imprisonment.
It is worth noting at this stage, that the defendant has not provided any evidence to contradict that which has been provided by the claimants. In fact, the basis of the application to set aside the judgment in default was, at least partially, due to the challenges experienced by the defendant in scheduling meetings with the coast guard officers who were involved in the incident. I did not accept this as a sufficiently good explanation as to why a defence was not filed on time, given the fact that some 9 months had elapsed since the initial claim was served on the defendant. Further, 5 months elapsed from the service of the amended claim to the date on which the judgment in default was granted. I am reminded of the words of Ramdhani J in the case of Everette Davis v. The Attorney General of Saint Kitts and Nevis1 where he states that “[t]he law enforcement arm of the state wields considerable coercive power that must...
To continue reading
Request your trial