Supreme Court
Action No. 158 of 1978
7th August, 1984
Moe, J.

Mr. M.C. Young for the Plaintiff.
Mr. Cynthia Pitts, Crown Counsel for the Defendant.

Plaintiff claims for damages on an aggravated basis for assault and false imprisonment - No spite or malice towards Plaintiff was found - Awards of damages on aggravated basis not granted - Whether the Plaintiff by not doing anything about removing his things from off property of which a marshal of the Supreme Court in the execution of judicial process constitutes a prevention or obstruction of the marshal in the execution of his duty.

J U D G M E N T

The Plaintiff claims from the Attorney General damages on an aggravated basis for assault and false imprisonment by a Deputy Marshal of the Supreme Court, a police constable and a sergeant of police. The Defendant avers that the Plaintiff was lawfully arrested when he resisted execution of an order of ejectment issued by the Supreme Court; that the deputy marshal was acting in the course of his duty to execute judicial powers and the police officers were acting lawfully in the execution of their duty to maintain peace and order when they arrested the Plaintiff for obstructing with violence the execution of judicial process; that the Plaintiff was detained by the police pending a decision on whether he should be prosecuted for obstructing a marshal of the Supreme Court in the execution of judicial process.

The accounts of what transpired given on behalf of the Plaintiff and the Defendant varied considerably. Unreliability in the Plaintiff and his wife his witness, was shown by both seeking to impress on the Court that none of the three officers before arresting the Plaintiff made him aware why they were there, whereas the Plaintiff eventually gave evidence that he argued with the marshal telling him he was not on leased property and the marshal and police had no right to touch him while he was on his boat even if they wanted to execute judgment. As between the various witnesses for the Defendant there were some inconsistencies.

I accepted the evidence of Roy Robateau, Assistant Marshal of the Supreme Court, that on the 29th October, 1977 he, Sergeant Pratt and Constable Thompson went to Long Caye, Glovers Reef, which was then in the occupation of the Plaintiff. The Deputy Marshal had with him a Writ of Possession issued by the Supreme Court directing him to cause one Ralph Jackson to have possession of the said Caye. He showed the Writ to the Plaintiff who read it and the marshal requested the Plaintiff to vacate the Caye. The Plaintiff told the marshal he was not able to put him off and mentioned something about a lease. He slapped the Writ from his hand, said he will go in his boat and the marshal will be unable to put him off then. The marshal called to the police and followed the Plaintiff to his boat. Here, I pause to observe that the marshal's evidence that he made the Plaintiff aware of the Writ and that he was going to execute it is borne out by the Plaintiff's own evidence mentioned above as to his argument with the marshal and what he had no right to do even if he wanted to execute judgment.

Now, when the Plaintiff slapped away the Writ, he assaulted the marshal who was then in the execution of his duties. The Plaintiff, therefore, committed a criminal offence for which he was liable to be arrested without a warrant.

There was inconsistency in the evidence for the Defendant as to whether the Plaintiff was arrested for that offence. Constable Thompson's evidence was that he informed the Plaintiff he will be arrested for preventing the marshal from executing his Writ and he did arrest him for that. Constable Thompson held the Plaintiff not at the time of the incident just related, but after an incident on the Plaintiff's boat to which I shall refer shortly. Sergeant Pratt gave evidence that the marshal called out that he was arresting the Plaintiff and that Thompson said he was arresting the Plaintiff for assaulting the marshal. However, the marshal's evidence was that he followed the Plaintiff on to his boat and placed himself by the door to the cabin refusing to let the Plaintiff pass. He said he was then trying to execute the Writ of Possession. There was a tussle during which the Plaintiff struck the marshal. The marshal then called on the police to arrest Mr. Lomont. The Plaintiff held on to the boat railing. Constable Thompson tried to take him away from the railing but was unable to do so. Sergeant Pratt then put on the Plaintiff what is called a come-along grip and it had the desired effect. The Plaintiff came away from the railing, and was placed in the boat which carried the marshal and the police. He jumped out and went back on the Island. Constable Thompson held him and took him back to the boat. He was then taken to Dangriga Police Station. He was wearing only a bath trunk and had refused to get clothed when asked to do so by the marshal and the police. He was kept at Dangriga Station until the following day when he was brought to Belize City and released about 10:00 p.m. on 30th October, 1977.

The marshal clearly assaulted the Plaintiff when he was on his boat. As I have found, at that point in time he was not effecting any arrest. He himself said that at the time he was seeking to effect the Writ of Possession, that is, as he explained, preventing him from getting into the cabin of his boat and not doing anything about moving his things off the island. At that time, the plaintiff, in my view was not preventing or obstructing the marshal from executing his duty. It has not been shown that in preventing the Plaintiff from entering the cabin of his boat the marshal was in the execution of his duty of putting the Plaintiff out of possession and Ralph Jackson into possession of the Caye. I have thus found no justification for the assault by the marshal, and the arrest by the police thereafter for obstructing the marshal in the execution of his duty was unlawful.

The Plaintiff is entitled to damages. I accepted his evidence that after the incident he experienced pain in his neck. This was entirely consistent with being held by the sergeant under the armpits with his head being forced forward and he offering resistance. Following his arrest, he was detained for some twenty-nine hours. I took the view that his condition of being only in bath trunks from the time of arrest until release was due to his own act of refusing to get clothes for himself. I did not find that the marshal or police acted out of spite and malice towards the Plaintiff and do not regard this as a fit case for the award of aggravated damages.

I think the Plaintiff will be adequately compensated by an award of $750.00 in damages. He is to have his costs.

----------OO----------