A security guard who in June last year sued the Government for false imprisonment and malicious prosecution was earlier this month awarded $3.5 million in general damages plus interest for false imprisonment after a Supreme Court judge found that while cops had reasonable and probable cause to arrest and detain him, “the lengthy period of detention” before his first court appearance for which “no explanation was given, was unreasonable”.

In filings before the court, the man, Raymond Campbell, had asserted that he was arrested wrongfully and without reasonable cause for the offences of illegal possession of firearm and ammunition on September 1, 2016. That claim was denied by the attorney general of Jamaica which represented the cops involved.

Campbell in a witness statement filed in June of 2025, said on the day in question he was employed to a particular security firm as the head guard and was assigned duties at a new residential development at Innswood Estate in St Catherine.

He claimed that sometime that day, cops drove up to the gate of the development asking for the contractor. According to Campbell, he directed them to another gate but when an officer became “belligerent” he walked away to call the project manager. He later admitted under cross-examination that he refused to let the police officers onto the premises but said this was after they became boisterous and disrespectful.

He said the officers then drove onto the property through another gate, and searched seven to eight people in the yard, including himself, before entering a building on the site.

According to Campbell, after conducting a search of the building, the cops, who had not presented a search warrant, returned with a firearm and took him along with the other security guards to the Spanish Town Police Station where he was charged with the offences of illegal possession of firearm and illegal possession of ammunition. He stated that he remained in custody for two weeks without being offered bail until he was granted bail on September 16, 2016. His case was concluded on May 30, 2017, after the prosecution offered no evidence on the charges. While in custody Campbell said he incurred legal fees and was unable to work.

Supreme Court judge Justice Tara Carr, who presided over the matter on April 27 and June 12 this year, noted that there was “no challenge to the fact that the possession of an illegal firearm and possession of ammunition are indictable offences under the Firearms Act” and pointed out that “in the circumstances the police officers did not require a warrant to arrest the claimant once they found that he had committed any such offence”.

Campbell had admitted that he was previously the holder of a firearm license and that he had been trained in the use of firearms. He denied that he had a firearm that day. He also denied that when the police arrived there was a firearm on his person and that he walked away from them, took the firearm from his person, and placed it in a building on the premises.

A police witness had told the court that on the day in question he had observed “a bulge” in Campbell’s waistband and had told his colleague. He said that bulge disappeared after Campbell returned from a building on the premises. The cop said he told the security guard his suspicions and told him to return with him to the building. He said a resistant Campbell told him he would not be following him anywhere, upon which he let go of him and searched a cupboard in the room and found the firearm.

Said Justice Carr, “I find and accept that [cop] had reasonable and probable cause to arrest the claimant on suspicion of the offences of illegal possession of firearm and ammunition. There is no denial that a firearm was found and no denial that the claimant was present at the premises on the day in question”.

In pointing out that neither cop had acted “maliciously”, she said based on the evidence there was reasonable and probable cause to arrest and detain Campbell and as such his defence of malicious prosecution had failed.

However, the jurist said Campbell’s arguments that he was held for longer than the 24 hours allowed by law without bail had merit.

Said Justice Carr: “The claimant was taken into custody on September 1, 2016. There is no explanation that has been provided as to the reason he was not charged until September 5, 2016. Further, there is no evidence that prior to his court date of September 16, 2016, that he had been given an opportunity to be heard on the issue of bail”.

“The length of time that the claimant remained in custody from his arrest until he was brought before the court far exceeds 24 hours. There being no explanation provided by the defendant as to the circumstances surrounding the delay in having the claimant brought before the court, there is no evidence that can be examined to lead me to make a finding that it was reasonable. I therefore find that the defendant is liable for the tort of false imprisonment for the protracted delay in bringing the claimant before the court and therefore entitled to damages,” she said.

In ruling that Campbell be awarded $3.5 million in general damages with interest at the rate of three per cent per annum from February 12, 2019 to June 12, 2026 “for the tort of false imprisonment”, Justice Carr said “the actions of the police officers on September 1, 2016, were lawful; however, the detention of the claimant for a period of 15 days deprived him of an opportunity to have a court enquire into his suitability for bail”.

“That lengthy period of detention in the absence of an explanation was unreasonable in the circumstances,” she said.

Campbell was represented by attorney Catherine J Minto while attorney Janoi Pinnock, instructed by the director of state proceedings, appeared for the attorney general.