(Trinidad Express) In what is one of the largest awards of damages made by the courts in a case for false imprisonment, the High Court has directed that the State pay a 16-year-old Venezuelan boy $2.4 million, exclusive of interest, after he was unlawfully detained for 456 days at the Heliport, Chaguaramas.
The court also ordered that the State pay $169,000, which represents the legal fees his mother incurred in pursuing the constitutional claim on her son’s behalf.
The award of damages is to be paid into the court by the Office of the Attorney General, after which the Registrar of the Court will have it deposited into an interest-bearing account that can only be accessed by the boy when he attains the age of 18.
The damages awarded are to be paid at an interest rate of 2.5% per annum from the date of service of the claim form on January 6, 2023, until yesterday’s date.
Making the order in a 114-page judgment yesterday afternoon was Justice Margaret Mohammed after the Privy Council in London remitted the matter to the High Court for the assessment of damages.
This came after the British law lords found on March 17, 2022, that the detention of the boy at the Heliport from December 15, 2020, to March 16, 2022—when a deportation order was issued in his name—was unlawful as there was no previous deportation or detention order issued by the Ministry of National Security against him.
Even though orders were subsequently issued against the two, they were not repatriated, given that the High Court ordered that they not be sent back to their home country pending the outcome of the constitutional claim.
During the course of the assessment proceedings, attorneys Gerald Ramdeen and Dayadai Harripaul, who appeared for the boy, submitted that based on a proper application of the evidence, the appropriate sum to award as general damages was $2.5 million and a separate sum be awarded for aggravated damages.
On the other hand, attorneys Stefan Jaikaran and Rachel Wright argued on behalf of the State that based on the particular facts, the AG’s Office ought not to be ordered to pay more than $400,000 in damages.
In her ruling, Justice Mohammed noted there were three particular cases emanating from the Privy Council and which the High Court was bound by. Those cases addressed the correct approach to be taken in the assessment of damages for long and extended periods of detention for the tort of false imprisonment.
In relying on all three cases, Justice Mohammed said in her view, the boy ought to be awarded general damages in the sum of $900,000; aggravated damages in the sum of $500,000 and $1 million in exemplary damages.
The boy and his mother, along with other Venezuelan nationals, intended to seek asylum and arrived in this country on a pirogue on November 17, 2020.
That same day, the group was detained and on November 22, they were escorted out of Trinidad and Tobago waters by the Coast Guard in the same pirogue in which they had arrived.
Two days later, the boy and his mother again returned to this country by boat and were arrested by police.
They were initially detained under a quarantine order in connection with the Covid-19 pandemic.
The boy was first detained at a health facility, then at the Erin Police Station and finally at the Heliport.
‘Appalling’ detention conditions
The constitutional claim was filed on December 2, 2020, and in it, Ramdeen and Harripaul contended that the boy was exposed to conditions he ought not to have been.
Firstly, the law states that no child should be detained at any such facility, but instead, they ought to be kept at a community residence.
The attorneys argued that the boy was exposed to explicit sexual acts and activities due to the mixing of adults and minors; overcrowding; no provision was made for him to practise his religion; there was limited access to counselling and no provision for education, recreational needs and interaction with peers.
In her affidavit, the boy’s mother said when they were first taken to the facility, they were required to stay under tents for 28 days while in quarantine.
After the quarantine period was over, they were taken to a dormitory area.
The boy stated that for some time he was kept in the female dormitory with adults, and he was often exposed to naked or scantily clad women.
On one occasion, he was made to sleep in the adult male dormitory where the male detainees brought female detainees into their beds during the night and had sexual intercourse within his sight.
In her judgment, Justice Mohammed pointed out that the State’s own witnesses corroborated the evidence of the boy and his mother.
In her ruling, the judge said based on the evidence, the conditions of detention at the Heliport where the boy was detained for the entire period were “appalling and totally unsuitable for a minor”.
“In assessing the effects of the appalling conditions on the Claimant one must attempt to look at it from the perspective of a minor and not as an adult. I accept that the Claimant was with his mother (name called) during the entire period of detention.
“While this would have given the Claimant a little degree of comfort, that does not minimise the severe trauma and psychological effects suffered by the Claimant as (his mother) also faced the same conditions at the Heliport and her evidence was that she felt a sense of helplessness in not being able to assist the Claimant,” said Justice Mohammed.
The judge also said it was unacceptable for the boy to not be separated from adults in both the quarantine and dormitory area.
“The effects of this exposure on the Claimant as set out in the Benjamin Report was inter alia that the Claimant has formed a negative perception of sex as he was constantly being aroused when people were having sex, when the ladies were naked or in their underwear, and he would see the persons having sex in his mind even when they were not having sex and since his release from detention he has a desire for pornography.
“The consequences of the Claimant being exposed to explicit sexual acts and activities have been dire on the Claimant which can only be described as if he has been robbed of his innocence as a child,” she said.
‘Treated as a criminal’ of reputation on the boy was significant as he had an unblemished character and reputation prior to his long detention.
“He did not violate any laws as it was not his decision to enter Trinidad and Tobago illegally. He has not been charged for any offence and has not been convicted of any offence.
“However, he was treated as a criminal and significant damage was done to his reputation based on the manner of treatment which he was made to suffer throughout his entire detention in the full view of his peers at the Heliport,” stated Justice Mohammed.
