A Hanover man who was seeking just over $68.1 million in damages from the State for breaching his rights, after being detained without charge for 154 days under the April 2019 state of public emergency (SOE) declared for the parishes of St James, Hanover, and Westmoreland, has been awarded $5 million in total by the Supreme Court.

According to court records, the self-employed man who worked as a security guard, shop owner, fisherman, and taxi driver was arrested and held for processing under a SOE at Hanover Police Station in Lucea in June 2019 in the first of two instances.

According to the man, he was told at that time that he would be detained for 90 days; however, he was held for 154 days. The man, through his attorney John Clarke, said he received no copies of any documents, the particulars he signed, nor official notification of the private data taken from him. Furthermore, he claimed that he did not consent to the collection of this data or his private information.

He said on the advice of his lawyer he applied for his release to the tribunal constituted to hear such matters and was subsequently released after 154 days in custody. The tribunal, upon hearing his petition, had ruled that the evidence presented on behalf of the first defendant (the Ministry of National Security), was insufficient to prove, on a balance of probabilities, that the claimant was involved in acts detrimental to public safety or public order, and ruled that his detention be revoked and discontinued.

The man, who requested that all his private information and relevant data be deleted from the Government database, said he was also not advised of his right to petition the tribunal.

A police detective sergeant, who gave evidence during the matter, in explaining the decision to arrest the claimant said, based on all the information collected on him, “a reasonable and probable suspicion was formed that he was a member of the Hundred Rounds gang and the leader of the Cash in Hand Family arm of the gang, which was involved in lottery scamming and extortion”.

Clarke, in arguing that his client was to be awarded $68,180,000 and that the awarding of any lesser sum would not emphasise the importance of the affected rights in light of the new approach demanded by the Charter of Rights, said he had been deprived of his liberty and was neither treated humanely nor with respect for the inherent dignity of his person.

According to the claimant, there were about 17 other prisoners in his cell. Special permission was required for bathroom use, and he was on lockdown from the time he was detained until his release. Furthermore, he said the cell had no running water or bathroom facilities, and any exit required permission. He also said that many times he had to use a bottle to relieve himself.

He said that after 90 days in that first cell he was moved to the back cell, which housed more than eight inmates. The man, who said he “was treated inhumanely and degradingly”, complained that he, “suffered anguish, pain, and embarrassment among his family, members of the community, and the public, and has incurred expenses securing his release from detention”. He further said he lost the income and money he would have earned during that period, and sustained loss and damage as a result.

During the matter, which was heard in the civil division of the court before Justice Sonya Wint-Blair over three dates between December 2024 and September this year, the man sought the court’s declaration on several issues, including whether Regulation 30 of the Emergency Powers Regulations 2019 breached his right to liberty, protection from search, privacy, and whether he was entitled to vindicatory, aggravated and exemplary damages and entitlement to damages for false imprisonment.

His attorney further argued that his client had incurred transportation-related expenses while incarcerated, and submitted that the State should cover his legal fees, loss of income and transportation expenses.

Attorneys for the State, however, contended that Clarke’s client had not provided any proof that he was earning from his jobs. The court, in noting this, pointed out that while the man had claimed that he incurred legal fees to submit his objection to the review tribunal, no receipts were exhibited as evidence of payment.

“Also, the claimant states that he incurred transportation expenses in the sum of $120,000. It is, however, unclear how the claimant incurred transportation expenses whilst in custody and whatever for,” the court said.

The court pointed out that in effect, the claimant, “has merely pleaded these special damages headings without providing any evidence to substantiate them”, and said it accepted the submissions of the State’s attorneys on damages.

As such, it said, “the award will be made in accordance with their submissions, with damages limited to 30 days for the tort of false imprisonment, and vindicatory damages to redress the constitutional breach of the right to liberty”.

The court ruled that regulations 22 and 30 of the Emergency Powers Regulations 2019 are in breach of the 2011 Charter of Rights and that the claimant’s right to liberty was breached as he was not released as ordered by the Emergency Powers Review Tribunal.

“It is declared that the claimant was wrongfully detained without criminal charges under the state of public emergency of April 30, 2019. The claimant is entitled to redress under Section 19(1) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights and Freedoms (Constitutional Amendment) Act 2011 for the contravention of the rights to liberty and freedom of movement as prescribed by the charter,” Justice Wint-Blair ruled.

She further ordered that, “all private data, photographs, fingerprints and personal information related to the claimant which was collected during his detention under a state of public emergency be destroyed”.

“The claimant is awarded damages in the total sum of $5,000,000 as follows:

a) compensatory damages in the sum of $3,000,000.

b) constitutional/vindicatory damages in the sum of $2,000,000,” she said further.