A student who sued The University of the West Indies (The UWI) for negligence after being robbed and stabbed while studying on the Mona campus 11 years ago, lost his case after a Supreme Court judge found that he failed to provide sufficient evidence that the institution had breached its duty of care or been lax in its security obligations.

According to the evidence in the case, the student was studying at a gazebo between the Confucius Institute and the Carimac Annex Lab on June 29, 2015, when two men came up to him and stole his laptop. They stabbed him twice in his chest and once in his abdomen, about 100 metres from a manned security booth at the campus’s post office entrance which, the student said, was within his line of sight. He said that before he was cut, he was not aware that the attackers were armed.

According to the account of another student, who was a witness in the matter, the two men had first appeared on bikes and called out to them “asking for free Wi-Fi”. She said her colleague responded and the two men rode away but returned on foot some moments later and sat in front of them. She said one of the men then demanded the male student’s laptop. She said when he reached for the laptop to secure it, the man pulled a knife and cut him on his arm while the other man attacked her.

According to her, their attackers then ran. They gave chase. She said while running she saw a friend and “called out to him”. She said they both helped her injured colleague to a vehicle and took him to hospital.

According to the injured male student, he chased the men because the weapon fell and he thought he was out of danger. He further said he did not call out to the security guard stationed at the post office gate, so that individual was unaware of what had transpired.

In his suit, the male student sought to recover damages on the basis that the university did not provide adequate security for its students.

Supreme Court judge Justice Tara Carr, who heard the matter in open court on three dates between June and early November this year, said the issues for determination were whether the university owed a duty of care to the student, either by virtue of statute or at common law in negligence and, if so, whether it breached that duty resulting in injury, loss, or damage to him and whether he was entitled to damages.

The student, in his defence, also relied on a letter from the campus registrar which stated, “As a result of this incident we have revisited and changed the protocols surrounding visitors to the campus who travel on motor bikes. We believe that this will go a far way in preventing incidents of this nature in the future.”

According to Justice Carr, this “tacit admission” was the lynchpin of the case for the student whose attorney argued that “this is sufficient for the court to find that the university did not do all that it could have to prevent the unfortunate incident which occurred”.

However, the university, in its defence, stated that it took reasonable care to ensure the safety of the student by implementing adequate and appropriate security measures.

An expert report and answers to questions posed from criminologist Dr Jason McKay formed a part of the evidence on behalf of the university. In his expert report, McKay stated that the university’s property is approximately 650 acres, with 67 security guards deployed at night on the campus which, he said, was, by any standard, a generous allocation of security personnel. McKay said he found that the property was secure and had security personnel posted at the entrances while noting that a property of this nature and size cannot facilitate a close protection security detail. He opined that the security arrangements at the university on the date of the incident were adequate and could be functional if all persons adhered to the directives as stated in the handbook.

Meanwhile, retired Assistant Commissioner of Police (ACP) Marlon Nesbeth, who is campus security manager, in his evidence, outlined that the university maintains a structured security system tailored to ensure the safety of all staff, students, and visitors to the campus. He said at the time of the incident the security team was comprised of 20 cops at the Mona Police Post and 200 security guards strategically stationed around the campus.

Furthermore, he said the university has designated areas for students outside of the operational hours of the campus, which are equipped with surveillance cameras and are well-lit. He also noted that the faculties have a security presence until 10:00 pm and the main library has 24-hour security.

Said Justice Carr: “There is no allegation that the physical conditions of the university caused the incident; neither can it be said that the university failed in its duty, whether by things done or undone, to provide a safe environment for all students to include [the student who was robbed and stabbed].”

“It is fair to say, based on the evidence, that the university provided spaces that were secure and safe for students to study throughout the day and night. The deployment of security guards and the erection of security posts over a 24-hour period is also accepted. The evidence [of the student] confirmed that there was a patrol that passed shortly before the incident. There is no evidence that contradicts these factual findings. Nor is there any evidence to suggest that the arrangements made by the university are insufficient or inadequate,” she noted further.

In disposing of the matter, Justice Carr said: “There is evidence to suggest… that the university employed several strategies to combat the rising level of crime on the Mona campus.”

Pointing out that it was the duty of the student’s attorneys to “put forward evidence to contradict this, or at the very least, to suggest that there were alternative options or arrangements that would have increased the security measures on the campus”, she said the claimant “did not provide the court with any evidence to support his case that the university did not do all that was reasonable in the circumstances to secure the campus and to provide a safe environment for all students”.

Said Justice Carr, in ruling in favour of the university, “The combination of the security measures outlined by Mr Nesbeth, the student handbook, and the warnings given are reasonable methods to prevent criminal activity at the university. [This student’s] injuries are a direct result of criminal conduct which, in our society, unfortunately is far too commonplace. I cannot say, however, that, based on the evidence as presented, the university was negligent or that they breached their statutory duty under the Act. In the round, therefore, I find that the claim has not been proved to the requisite standard and judgment is entered for the defendant.”