REPUBLIC OF TRINIDAD AND TOBAGO IN THE HIGH COURT OF ...webopac.ttlawcourts.org/LibraryJud/Judgments/HC/... · Scarborough General Hospital on October 02, 2016 complaining f pain

REPUBLIC OF TRINIDAD AND TOBAGO

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE

CLAIM NO CV2016-00635

BETWEEN

KAREEM DES VIGNES

Claimant

AND

BENJAMIN FARRELL

First DefendantCOMMERCIAL PROTECTIVE SERVICES

Second Defendant

PUBLIC TRANSPORT SERVICE CORPORATION

Third Defendant**************************************************

Beforer: Master Alexander

Date of delivery: July 23, 2019

Appearances:

For the claimant: Mrs Debra Moore-MigginsFor the third defendant: Ms Gitanjali Gopeesingh instructed by Ms Elena AraujoNo appearance for the first and second defendants

DECISION

FACTS

1. The claimant was a 32-year~o|d self—employed farmer residing in Black

Rock, in the island of Tobago when he filed a claim on March 04, 2016

seeking certain declaratory reliefs, damages and costs against the

defendants. His claim arose from an incident that started at the Public

Transport Service Corporation Bus Depot at Sangsters Hill, Scarborough,

Tobago that spilled over and piayed out, in public, on Milford Road,

1

Scarborough (”the Sangsters Hill incident"). The Sangsters Hill incident

occurred on June 22, 2012 while the claimant was a lawful visitor at the

bus depot. As a public body, the third defendant was vested with the

responsibilities for public transportation for Tobago under the Ministry of

Transport. Pursuant to that portfolio, the third defendant exercised direct

care and control over the bus depot and, because ofthis, hired the second

defendant on contract to provide security services. The first defendant

was an off duty security officer at the bus depot.

The claimant pleaded that on the day of the Sangsters Hill incident, he

boarded an omnibus, owned and operated by the third defendant, en

route to Black Rock, paid his fare and occupied a seat. Shortly thereafter,

the first defendant instructed the claimant to disembark, allegedly for

previously coming onto the compound and using expletives for which a

report had been made to the police. Denying knowledge of such incidents,

the claimant nevertheless attempted to exit the bus when, in the process

of so doing, the first defendant directed the other passengers to

disembark. The claimant then requested a refund of his fare, initiaily from

the first defendant and secondly from the bus driver, both of whom denied

any knowledge of any right to a repayment. immediately upon

disembarking, the claimant became involved in a fracas with the first

defendant, Officer Critchlow and two other staff members of the third

defendant. The fray commenced after one of the third defendant's staff

members had struck the ciaimant, followed by the others grabbing and

punching him. He pleaded that the melee caused him to become fearful

of losing his life and, in defence, he swung a punch at the first defendant

and struggled with the others until he freed himself and escaped on foot.

3. On his escape, the first defendant and others pursued the claimant on foot,

through the E—Teck Mall area and onto the public Milford Road. Whilst on

Milford Road, the first defendant brandished his weapon and pointed it in

the claimant‘s direction, who ran offto evade his pursuers. About one mile

from the bus depot, the claimant reached a vendor and asked for a phone

call to get help. Whilst standing by the vendor, the first defendant arrived

in a white Hilux van, disembarked and threatened the claimant by stating,

"yuh playing crazy, ah go show yuh how crazy i is”. A battery followed this

assault when the first defendant pointed a gun at the claimant and shot

him in his upper left thigh.

4. After he was shot, the claimant was taken to the Scarborough Police

Station where he was detained for about half an hour before being taken

to the Scarborough Regionai Hospital and subsequently to the Port of

Spain General Hospital. He spent seven days at the hospitais, and was

under poiice guard throughout. On June 30, 2012 he was released into

police custody, and was taken back to the Scarborough Police Station,

where he was placed in a holding cell for three days. He was charged for

obscene language and resisting arrest. On February 14, 2014 the charges

were dismissed for non-appearance ofthe first defendant.

LIABILITY ORDER

5. Seepersad J issued a liability order on June 17, 2016, wherein he made

certain declarations and sent the issue of quantum to a master.

Thereafter, the matter was case managed by a different master and came

up first in this court on September 20, 2018, when it was fixed to proceed

on February 20, 2019. The liability order must at this point be set out as it

directly impinges on certain arguments raised in the assessment. By this

liability order Seepersad J:

a. Declared that the claimant was lawfully at the Public Transport

Service Corporation compound on June 22, 2012 where he was

attacked by the first defendant and/or servants or agents of the

second defendant and third defendant. As a result of the attack

the claimant was assaulted, physically beaten and shot in his thigh,

thus he suffered damages and injury. Accordingly, the defendants

are liable to the claimant for the injury sustained given the

circumstances of the attack that was occasioned upon him on June

22, 2012.

b. Ordered that having heard the evidence, the court was ofthe view

that the behaviour of the first defendant was unjustifiable and

excessive. The claimant was entitled to aggravated and exemplary

damages for the process he was subjected to on that date.

c. Referred the assessment of damages and costs to a master for

determination.

LAW

6. The assessment at bar involves a claim for assault and battery. For assault

and battery1 involving personal injuries, a claimant is entitled to

compensation, to be determined in a similar fashion to personal injury

casesz. It means that a claimant can recover both pecuniary and non-

pecuniary damages. With respect to assessing general damages, the locus

1 An assault is any act that intentionally or possibly recklessly causes another person toapprehend immediate and unlawful personal Violence. Battery is a term used to mean the actualor intended use of unlawful force to another person without his consent. Where an assaultinvolved a battery, it matters not whether the battery is inflicted directly by the body of theoffender or through the medium of some weapon or instrument controlled by the action of theoffender. To constitute this offence, some intentional act must have been performed. See Fagan

v Metropolitan Police Comr [1969] 1 QB 439, [1968] 3 All ER 442

2 Mahadeo Sookhai v The Attorney General CV2006-00986

ciassicus is Cornilliac v St Louisa, which outlines the applicabie principles

for framing the award. it is important that the claimant’s evidence be

informed by these and other guiding principles on assessments, to arrive

at an appropriate award.

(a) The Nature and Extent of the Injuries

7. Evidence of the nature and extent of the claimant‘s injuries came via the

medical reports and records exhibited to the claimant’s witness statement.

The medical evidence went in via a hearsay notice, so the evidence was

not tested under cross—examination. Medical reports dated June 22, 2012

and December 21, 2016 outlined the claimant's injuries as a displaced

comminuted fracture of the distal third of the left thigh and a severe

comminuted fracture ofthe left middle distal femur. To treat his injuries,

he underwent an antegrade femoral nailing of the left femur procedure.

(b) The Nature and Gravity of the Resulting Physical Disability

8. From his injuries, he remained with a shortened left leg, which was

deformed and had significant swelling. The claimant's injuries also left him

with a noticeable limp, when he walks, and pain in his spine. There was

also a one-centimeter diameter scar on his left thigh.

(c) Pain and Sufferiflgjndured

9. The Sangsters Hill incident occurred in 2012 and from then up to the

assessment, the claimant has been suffering with pain from his injuries.

He provided documentary evidence of this in the form ofa medical report

dated December 21, 2016 at the hand of Dr H Woo of the Scarborough

General Hosoital (“the Woo report”). The Woo report referred to the

3 Corniliiac vSt Louis (1965) 7 WIR 491 (a) nature and extent of injuries sustained (b) natureand gravity of the resulting disability (c) pain and suffering endured (d) ioss of amenities and (e)extent to which pecuniary prospects were materially affected.

10.

claimant attending the Accident and Emergency Department at the

Scarborough General Hospital on October 02, 2016 complaining of pain in

his left knee for one year. On examination conducted along with an X-ray

of the left knee, the claimant’s knee had full range of motion with normal

power, and there was no swelling or tenderness evident. The Woo report

stated that, "an impression of an old bullet wound was made and he was

discharged on Panadol tablets.”

Albeit limited, the medical evidence that pointed to ongoing complaints of

pain in the left knee up to 2016 was accepted by this court. This position

was informed by the claimant’s evidence in chief that spoke to his

persistent pain following the gunshot injuries. He averred in his witness

statement that the injuries caused by the gunshot caused him excruciating

pain in his left thigh and spine. He described the pain in his spine as being

considerable and in his left thigh as being severe. It would appear that

because of the gunshot injuries, he used assistive devices to aid with his

ambulation. Thus, during the first year following the injuries, he used

crutches then graduated to a walking stick, for an unidentified period, but

now walks unaided. During his period of rehabilitation, it is presumed that

he would have experienced pains of descending levels of severity

overtime. He has provided no evidence to show any glitches in the

progression of his healing or to convince this court that his pains would

have yo-yoed sharply or worsened during the healing progression more so

than on initial injury. In fact, the Woo report indicates that he was

prescribed with Panadol tablets to manage his pain. Thus, this court

assumed that his pain would have been severe and significant initially, but

on a declining trajectory as healing progressed, then crested at the level of

slight to manageable, which continued to date. Under cross-examination,

he admitted to always feeling pain since the injuries, which he described

as ”slight pain”. This court noted in particular his evidence that during

inclement weather, the pain in his left thigh is severe. It was easy to accept

this evidence of an externai factor such as cold weather conditions

aggravating his pain. It was felt, however, that the aggravation caused by

the cold weather would not have caused a similar ievel of excruciating pain

as on the initial injuries. The continued experience of pain, and the fact

that it would worsen sometimes more than others, was accepted also. This

claimant remained with a shortened left leg and now walks with a

noticeable limp, which he linked to pain in his spine. This court accepted

that the misalignment in the limb would lead naturally to a measure of

pain and discomfort and that his evidence of continuing pain in his spine

was truthful. In fact, in the view of this court, this claimant presented as a

candid witness who, in recounting his pain and suffering, did not seek to

balloon his evidence to attract more compensation. He suffered grave

pain on being shot in his thigh and several years later, whilst no longer

unbearable; he continued to experience ongoing pain, sometimes at

greater levels of intensity than at other times. This evidence was not

undermined or challenged effectively so stood and was used to inform the

quantum. In this regard, this court took note of the third defendant’s

submissions as to the deficiencies in the documentary evidence. Further,

it was argued that the medical reports were silent as to the pain suffered,

treatment administered, any medical attention sought during 2012-2015

or even of any residual or lingering disabiiities. The Woo report in fact

referenced the complaints of ongoing pain in the left knee for at least one

year after the incident and that some four years afterwards the claimant

was still attending the Accident and Emergency Department seeking

treatment for pain and swelling. It also referred to a cream prescribed

previously for his swelling that was now finished. While not detailed, the

Woo report convinced this court that the claimant was experiencing

11.

12.

13.

ongoing issues with pain and swelling for which he was still seeking medical

intervention some four years later. Further, there was no counter

evidence provided that the claimant was pain free and given his injuries,

this court felt that he would have to live with some measure of pain for the

rest of his life.

(d) Loss of Amenities Suffered

The claimant was silent on his loss of amenities suffered. Without the

necessary evidence, this court could not come to any firm conclusion as to

the extent, if any, ofthe loss suffered under this head.

(e) Extent to which Pecuniary Prospects have been Materiaily Affected

The claimant is a registered farmer, planting on a 1/2-acre plot. He gave

evidence that his injuries rendered him incapable of carrying out his

farming activities. Prior to the Sangsters Hill incident, he used to cultivate

short—term crops, which he sold at the market. He would earn $3,375.00

per harvesting of limes, but now earns $1,125.00. He gave no evidence as

to the period of harvesting. He would also sell five bottles of coconut oil

for $150.00 each per week. It is his evidence that his earning capacity was

reduced considerably by his injuries. He ciaimed that overall, he has lost

$660.00 per week by his injuries. However, he provided no documentary

evidence of same. When pressed under cross-examination as to if he had

mitigated his losses, he admitted that he did not hire an assistant nor asked

any relative or friend to assist with his farming duties.

Counsel for the third defendant pointed out that the documentary

evidence in support of this claim was woefuliy lacking. She submitted that

the claimant failed to prove that he was a registered farmer, stating in

cross-examination that he had furnished all the documents to his lawyer.

It was submitted aiso that he failed to prove that his injuries rendered him

8

14.

incapable of performing his previousjob or any other form of work. As the

medical evidence of the impact of his injuries on his ability to work was

missing, the court was asked not to make any award under this head.

CASES

The Ciaimant’s Authorities

The claimant’s counsel submitted for consideration:

Fabien Garcia v AG4 where for injuries sustained from a bullet wound to

the right leg an award of $61,500.00 was made.

Richard Ramnarace v Vishsam Boodoosingh5 where the claimant was shot

in his face and sustained injuries to the right side of the face and mouth.

He sustained compound fractures of the right mandible, dental avuision

and fractures; loss of several teeth; scarring to the right side of the face;

deformity of the angle of the mouth and lower lip; narrowing of the

aperture of the mouth; and loss of buccal sulcus in the right lowerjaw area.

There was also evidence that the claimant had developed microstomia

(abnormally small mouth) due to the loss of a significant portion of the

right mandible and soft tissue in the area of the lips. His facial appearance

led to the premature end of his romantic life. He was awarded

$150,000.00 in general damages inclusive of aggravated damages; as

updated to December 2010 to $286,211.00.

Warner v Asst Supt and AG5 where a claimant suffered near fatal injuries

from being shot by police in his abdomen, and psychiatric trauma. He was

awarded $300,000.00 inclusive of aggravated damages, $200,000.00 for

false imprisonment and malicious prosecution and exemplary damages of

$90,000.00. Special damages were assessed as $233,630.00.

Garcia v AG CV2008—00959 delivered on July 24, 2013 by Dean Armoreri (overturned)Ramnarace v Boodoosingh HCA 5-503 of 1999 delivered on July 6, 2001 by BereauxJWarner vAsst Supt 8: AG CV2014-00542 delivered on February 12, 2016 by Kokaram J

15.

Martin Reid v A67 where the claimant suffered a serious and vicious

assault from prison officers, sustaining a broken finger, two cuts to the

back of his head and cuts and bruises all over his body. During the attack

he was kicked; hit on the head, hands and back; poked and prodded with

a staff until he fell to the ground bleeding and unconscious. He suffered

post-concussion syndrome from the blunt head trauma and, at the

assessment, still suffered blackouts, pain and headaches. He was denied

proper medical treatment following the beating, initially being treated by

the prison infirmary and returned to his cell, without any pain medication.

While in his cell, the cuts on his head continued to bleed staining his bed

sheets. It took two days before the prison doctor treated and transferred

him to the hospital, where he was warded for five days. He provided

cogent evidence of the severe pains from his injuries. He was awarded

$65,000.00 as general damages and $45,000.00 as exemplary.

Sean Wallace wilt;8 where general damages was awarded of $160,000.00

inclusive of aggravated and $70,000.00 as exemplary damages to a

claimant who was beaten and kicked by three prison officers in connection

with a bag that was thrown over the prison wall. He was taken upstairs by

another officer and mercilessly beaten with a staff all over his body. He

experienced severe pains and was warded at the hospital for four days.

The Defendants’ Authorities

Counsel for the third defendant suggested for consideration:

Burnett v Kolasingh and Jilii'itoni9 where for a severe fracture of the femur

leading to a series of operations the sum of $35,000.00 was awarded; as

adjusted to December, 2010 to $164,730.00.

Martin Reid v AG CV2006-02496 delivered on June 6, 2007 by JonesiSean Wallace v AG CV2008—04009 delivered on October 02, 2009 by Des Vignes JBurnettv Kolasingh HCA 3459 of 1984 delivered on February 24, 1987 by Gopeesingh M

10

16.

Mohammad v Paintiicii10 where the main injuries were fracture tuberosity

of the ieft humerus, fracture subluxation of the left patella and knee joint,

left knee grade III medial and lateral collateral ligament injury.

Additionally, grade III anterior and posterior cruciate ligament injuries and

future surgery was recommended. The claimant was awarded

$110,000.00; as updated to December, 2010 to $126,739.00.

Suresh v thgroo11 where for multipie fractures of both legs, knee

deformities, slight differences in length, partial deafness and buzzing in the

head, an award was made of $25,000.00; as adjusted to December 2010

to $116,230.00.

Samaroo v ll/ioiritairio12 where an award of $22,000.00 was made for a

fractured right femur, shortening of leg by 2.5cm and nose injury; as

adjusted to December, 2010 to $94,401.00.

Mohammed v Stirisiersad13 where for a comminuted fracture of the femur,

shortening of the leg and reduced hip and knee movement, an award was

made of $20,000.00; as adjusted to December, 2010 to $88,662.00.

DISCUSSION

Counsel for the claimant sought an award of general damages of

$300,000.00 and exemplary of5150,000.00. The third defendant's counsel

recommended $20,000.00 inclusive of aggravated as an appropriate

award. The basis for her suggestion of an award at the lowest end ofthe

spectrum was that the claimant's medical evidence was deficient and

untested, entitling him only to compensation under the first heading of

nature and extent of injuries only. It was submitted that he was not even

entitled to an award for aggravation or loss of pecuniary prospects.

10

11

12

13

Mohammad v Panaiai HCA No 5-1632 of 2004 delivered on March 18, 2009

Suresh v Mangroo HCA 3474/1983 delivered on March 13, 1987 Gopeesingh M

Samaroo v Montana HCA153/1983 delivered on June 24, 1988 by Best M

Mohammad et ai v Supersad HCA 5-154 — 157 delivered on October 23, 1987 by Lucky J

11

17.

18.

The cases provided by counsel for the third defendant were antiquated,

with all, save one having been delivered in 1987 and 1988. The most

updated authority provided by the third defendant was delivered in 2009.

On the other hand, counsel for the claimant recommended the more

recent authority of Fabien Garcia delivered in 2013. However, on May 24,

2019 the Court of Appeal overturned this decision and remitted the matter

back to the High Court to be heard before a different triai judge.

In its deliberations, this court considered first the evidence as to the nature

and extent of the injuries as well as the continuing disabilities. The

fractures suffered by this claimant were severe and understandably so

given that he was shot at close range. In his witness statement, the

claimant said, ”[H]e then placed his gun directiy on my leg and pulled the

trigger and shot me in my upper left thigh.” There was no dispute that he

was shot or even that the nature of his injuries was different to what was

pleaded and supported by the medical evidence. As to his evidence of pain

and suffering, he was clear that he endured "excruciating pain” which was

intense and unbearable "on the said day of the incident while i was lying

wounded and in pain”. This pain "continued without easing throughout the

entire period” from being shot and taken to the Scarborough Police station

where he was kept for about half an hour before being taken to the

h05pital. This pain would have continued during his stay at hospital,

though medication might have made it more bearable. After he was

released from hospital, he was detained for three days in a cell, where he

averted he was still in pain and discomfort, although he was on

medication. He also made clear that the recuperating process during

which he had to manoeuvre around on crutches, with a walking stick and

even unaided, caused him considerable pain. He was also clear that his

12

19.

pain has continued to the present time. He was a credible witness whose

evidence of pain was accepted, including that he might have to live with

some degree of this for the rest of his life.

The court considered the cases provided, together with the evidence

advanced of his injuries and continuing disabilities, particularly, with what

he must now live. He has a shortened limb and persistent pain in his spine

from his injuries, as such; it was felt that the quantum of $20,000.00

recommended by the third defendants' counsel would not fairly

compensate this claimant. In fact, this quantum fell way outside of the

range of even the dated authorities provided by counsel. While all the

authorities were compared and considered in this exercise, it was felt that

some of these cases presented dissimilar injuries and disabilities. Of

closest similarity was the case of Ramnarace, so the quantum given there

was used as a benchmark. Notice was taken of the fact that the claimants

in Ramnarace and at bar were shot in different areas of the body so this

would have affected any comparisons made. The Ramnarace award was

made in 2001 and consideration was given to the cost of inflation and

other assessment principles. Both the claimant in Ramnarace and the one

at bar, on being shot, were taken to the police station before transfer to

hospital, 50 would have suffered excruciating pain from their injuries

before accessing medical treatment. This claimant’s award would be

pinned on that as given in Ramnarace bearing in mind the relevant

distinctions. It was felt that although the case of Deryck Warner involved

a gunshot wound, that injury was near fatal unlike the present case. While

useful for comparative purposes, the claimant at bar could not attract a

liked quantum.

13

20. The liability order mandated an award for aggravated damages. To attract

21.

such an award, there must be some evidence of aggravating features On

which the court can ground the award. in the present case, the evidence

was woefully bereft of aggravating features. Such evidence would point to

mentai suffering, feelings of humiliation, embarrassment, affront to his

dignity, damage to reputation and loss of standing in the eyes ofthe public.

A judicial combing through of the witness statement revealed evidence of

the very public nature of the assault and battery, detailing the foot pursuit

on the heavily traversed Milford Road. That the assault and battery took

place in full view of the public was clear in the evidence, "Mr anreiir

brandished his weapon and pointed same at me. All this time there were

members of the public around the area inciuding school children as it was

a school day and around the time that most schools were dismissed.

Students were heading toward the buses at the time." There is no doubt

that the very public unfolding of this incident from the PTSC Bus Depot,

through a main street of Tobago would have been traumatic and

humiliating but the silence in his evidence as to how the tort impacted him

tied the hands ofthis court in this regard. Whilst even thin evidence has

attracted such an award as in Hafeez Aiiv A614,there was no evidence led

as to aggravating factors. Given the liability order, a nominal sum was

given for aggravation, which is included in the award of $200,000.00 for

assault and battery.

SPECIAL DAMAGES

Loss of Earnings

The claimant seeks an award of loss of earnings as a registered farmer

because of his injury. His evidence is that he was a registered farmer since

2009 involved in cultivating family land at Fairbanks Tobago with short-

14 Hafeez Ah VAG CA Civ 278 of 2012

14

22.

23.

term crops. He also made coconut oil, and sold about five bottles weekly

at $150.00 per bottle. He provided a farmer’s badge, receipts from Chef

Barbeque and a letter from Red Coral Foods, which spoke to a regular

course of business in supplying dry coconuts dating back to 2011. His

injuries have caused him to farm at a substantially reduced rate since the

Sangsters Hi|| incident. This ciaim for loss ofearnings was made via a veiled

reference to such a loss from his injuries during recuperation, with no

particulars being given of the period or estimated quantum of loss. In his

witness statement, he gave evidence of operating at one-third of his usual

output and as such suffering a loss of earnings in the approximate sum of

$237,875.00. There was no adequate proof advanced ofthis loss. The law

requires that special damages must specificaliy he pleaded and proved“.

This court was of the view that he would have suffered some form of loss

of earnings but failed to prove it, so awarded a nominal sum of $5,000.00.

Ultrasound and domestic care

A receipt for $400.00 was provided for an ultrasound but this claim was

not pleaded and no evidence led by the claimant explaining its occurrence,

so was disallowed. He claimed domestic care of $18,000.00 for one year.

He provided no evidence ofthis save to say he hired a caregiver (unnamed)

who gave him receipts. These receipts were not in evidence and he failed

to call the caregiver or to provide medical evidence of this need. He would

have needed some home care during the initial stages and is allowed to

recover this at $1,500.00 for six months.

Future Surgery

The claimant claimed future surgery as a possible expense. This claim was

not supported by the requisite evidence, so no award was made.

15Mario’s Pizzeria Ltd v Hordeo Ramjit CA 146 of 2003

15

24.

25.

EXEMPLARY DAMAGES

Exemplary damages would apply where the offender’s behaviour

amounted to oppressive, arbitrary and unconstitutional action and a court

wanted to show its displeasure. These terms must be read disjunctivelylfi.

The offending act must have been done by one exercising governmental

power, and the award would only be given if compensatory damages were

inadequate to punish the defendant or deter others. It would also be given

as a mark of the court’s disapproval (the "if but only if” test)”; and where

it was ciearthat the defendant had not acted in good faith and the claimant

has not caused or contributed to the behaviour complained of“. In the

recent decision of Darrell Wade v A619 Jones JA referenced Torres20 to

provide general guidance on the manner in which a court should exercise

its discretion in making an award for exemplary damages. Torres

determined that such an award has to be proportional to the defendant’s

conduct. Proportionality was examined against (i) the blameworthiness of

the defendant‘s conduct, (ii) the degree ofthe vulnerability of the plaintiff

and (iii) the need for deterrence.

This court condemns the conduct of the first defendant in attacking and

beating the claimant. Such behaviour was viewed as highhanded,

inexcusable and arbitrary in the eyes of this court. Further, the conduct

was excessive and motivated by bad faith. The court also considers how

the first defendant continued the ordeal and made it a point to pursue the

claimant and unleashed what essentially was a vicious attack. In applying

the Torres principle of proportionality to the facts of this case, this court

found first that the first defendant attacked the claimant on at least two

15

17

13

19

20

Rookes v Barnard [1964] AC 1129; Holden v Chief Canstabie of Lancashire [1987] QB 380Broame v Casseii [1972] AC 1126 Brooms v Casseii [1972] AC 1126 per Lord DiplockThompson v Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis [1998] QB 498Darrel! Wade y AG CA 172 of 2012 and Jason Supervilie v AG CA 173 of 2012Torres v PLiPDECO (2007) 74 WIR 431

16

26.

occasions, once at the PTSC compound and yet again on Milford road

(which essentially speaks to the blameworthiness of his conduct).

Secondly, the claimant was placed in a position of vulnerability. In Darrell

Wade the Court of Appeal was clear that a higher award could be attracted

in the case of vulnerability. The vulnerability was evident in that the

claimant was held under police guard for seven days at the hospitals and

then in a holding cell for three days upon his release from the hospital. Hisdegree of vulnerability was two~fold, in that, he was under the completecare and control of the State whilst nursing injuries caused by the firstdefendant. Thirdly, the egregious behaviour of the first defendant mustnot only be condemned, but deterred. The claimant at bar has obtainedcompensation for his injuries, but this court considers it only fit to make afurther award to flag its displeasure. In so doing, it applied moderationand restraint and awarded $50,000.00.

ORDER

It is ordered that the defendants do pay the claimant:

(i) General damages for assault and battery inclusive of aggravation in

the sum of$200,000.00 with interest at the rate of 2.5% per annum

from April 08, 2016 to July 23, 2019.

(ii) Special damages in the sum of $14,000.00 with interest at the rateof 1.5% per annum from June 22, 2012 to July 23, 2019.

(iii) Exemplary damages in the sum of $50,000.00.

(iv) Costs prescribed in the sum of $49,694.05.

Martha Alexander

Master

MARTHAALEXANDERMASTER OF THE SUPREME COURT OF

TRINIDAD AND TOBA0“

17