A St Catherine man who sued the State for damages for assault, false imprisonment and malicious prosecution after he was shot by a cop in 2014 when he was 18, walked away the successful party after appealing the $5 million he was awarded as general damages for pain and suffering.

The Appellate Court on Friday ruled that while the Government, in a countersuit, had succeeded in reducing other sums the court had granted, “the overall impact is in favour of the appellant as the respondents will be the parties to write the cheque for an increased sum at the end of the day”.

As such, the court, in allowing the appeal, ordered that the original award of general damages in the sum of $5 million ordered by a Supreme Court judge in 2022 be set aside, and the sum of $18 million be substituted. However, in allowing the counter notice of appeal by the State in part, the Court of Appeal ordered that the original award of $16.6 million for false imprisonment be set aside, and the sum of $9.1 million substituted therefor. In addition, it ordered that the original award of $1.3 million for exemplary damages is set aside, and the sum of $400,000 substituted therefor.

“In the instant case, the appellant succeeded in his appeal challenging the learned judge’s assessment of the general damages for pain and suffering and loss of amenities. That sum was increased by $13,000,000,” the judges of the appeal noted.

The judges however pointed out that while the counter appeal was successful, leading to the sum awarded for false imprisonment being reduced by $7.5 million while the sum awarded for exemplary damages was reduced to $400,000, the sum awarded to the appellant had been increased by $4.6 million.

“Looked at in the round and assessed as a whole, the appellant is the successful party. In the circumstances, costs of the appeal should be awarded in his favour. In respect of the counter notice of appeal, although the respondents succeeded in reducing the sums awarded for false imprisonment and exemplary damages, the overall impact is in favour of the appellant as the respondents will be the parties to write the cheque for an increased sum at the end of the day given the appellant’s success in the appeal,” the Appellate Court said Friday.

The claim arose out of an incident that occurred on November 13, 2014 at approximately 9:00 pm on Westmeade Boulevard, Bridgeport, in St Catherine. According to the appellant in his witness statement, on the night in question he was 18 years old, and standing on the side of the road when the cop, named as the second respondent in the lawsuit, pointed a firearm at him and fired several shots, hitting him several times in the lower body.

He said he was taken to the Spanish Town Hospital, where he was hospitalised and underwent surgery. According to the young man, during his hospitalisation he was kept under constant police guard, with his right hand handcuffed to the rails of the bed head. He said three days after the surgery, he was scheduled for another surgery as a result of an infection that had developed in his lower body. It was however his evidence that the surgery was delayed by several hours as the officer responsible for guarding him did not have the keys to unlock the handcuffs. His evidence is that fluid was removed from his abdomen during that surgical procedure and a bullet later removed.

He said he was subsequently transferred to the University Hospital of the West Indies where he was admitted for over two weeks for pains to his stomach after which the police came and retrieved him “against the advice of medical personnel”. The young man, who said he at the time had a drain tube in his stomach and had to use a catheter to urinate, said he was taken to the Portmore Police Station but only after the officers on the journey there stopped at various places, including a bar and a restaurant, and a location to purchase fresh fish. He said on arrival at the station, he was refused his medication, and he subsequently fainted in the guardroom.

He said he remained in custody until January 23, 2015 when he was charged with the offences of robbery with aggravation and illegal possession of a firearm. On February 4, 2015, he was placed before the Gun Court and offered bail. After appearing before the Gun Court on 10 occasions, the case was adjourned each time on the prosecution’s application. With no witness present for any of those hearings the prosecution on July 4, 2017 offered no evidence with respect to all charges against him after two years and five months and 83 days in police custody.

The judges of the appeal in accepting the arguments of the man’s attorneys,said the court “was at liberty to disturb the award” as “the learned judge, based on her summary of the appellant’s submissions in the court below, misunderstood the appellant’s submissions and erred in awarding the sum of $5 million to the appellant for general damages for pain and suffering and loss of amenities”.

However, in finding that the sum awarded for false imprisonment should be reduced, the judges of the appeal pointed out that “exemplary damages are awarded not to compensate a claimant but to punish the defendant and deter similar misconduct, so they do not readily lend themselves to mechanical inflation adjustments” unlike compensatory damages, which may properly be updated to reflect the current value of money.

“An award of exemplary damages is not intended to be a windfall. The sums awarded for general damages for pain and suffering and loss of amenities and false imprisonment are, in my view, insufficient to compensate the appellant for the actions of the second respondent for whom the first respondent was ultimately responsible and to register the court’s disapproval of the second respondent’s conduct,” the judges of the appeal said.