Supreme Court
Action No. 71 of 1979
15th April, 1980
Staine, CJ.

Mr. P. Zuniga for the Plaintiff

False Imprisonment - Application for Damages - Exemplary Damages - Principles on which a Court ought to award Exemplary Damages.

J U D G M E N T

This matter came before the Court in Chambers for the assessment of damages.

An Action was commenced by the Plaintiff for false imprisonment and malicious prosecution. This Action is against the Attorney General who is the first Defendant, and against Police Constable Dwight Grant as the second named Defendant. The second named Defendant having failed to appear, judgment was entered for the Plaintiff on the 12th May, 1979. It only remains now for the Court to assess the damages.

In addition to filing an Affidavit in support, the Plaintiff gave evidence on oath. It is unnecessary to go into the facts and data save to mention a few brief matters pertinent to this judgment. The evidence disclosed that according to the allegations of the Plaintiff, he was shot by the second named Defendant in the course of the second named Defendant making an arrest of the Plaintiff, but the evidence does not disclose whether the shooting was deliberate. The injuries however could not have been severe as the Plaintiff spent only part of a night and part of the morning in the hospital before being discharged. In any case he does not sue for the injuries inflicted upon him, but for false imprisonment and malicious prosecution. It appears that the Plaintiff having been taken into custody, the second named Defendant appeared with a bag containing some sticks of marijuana, and on the following day the Plaintiff was taken before the Magistrate in Belize City, and charged with resisting arrest and being in possession of dangerous drugs. Both charges were dismissed and as a consequence this Action was commenced.

By his Affidavit in support of his evidence the Plaintiff claims $229.50 by way of special damages. This is made up of $225.00 in respect of the cost of his Defence (solicitor's fees) and $4.50 hospital fees. I would award this sum by way of special damages and merely comment that the sum paid for hospital fees bears out my impression that the Plaintiff did not suffer unduly from his injuries, nor were the injuries severe.

At the time of the incident which gave rise to this claim the Plaintiff was working as a stevedore. He says he is now employed in handling crawfish pots because there is more money in the latter trade, but he is still able to work as a stevedore. In his Affidavit he alleges that he was injured in his reputation and put to considerable trouble and inconvenience, anxiety and expense and has suffered loss and damage. I have already alluded to the losses and in assessing what damage the Plaintiff's reputation has suffered I must of interest refer to his occupation being that of stevedore. I would not like to be heard to say that a stevedore has no reputation to loose, but I will certainly feel that generally speaking, it cannot be of a high order. It is a profession that requires no specialised training and the Plaintiff is still able to carry on his employment. Therefore, I will think that any injury to the Plaintiff's reputation must be minimal and I would award no more than the sum of $1,000 and that I consider generous. This is in addition to the special damages I have already mentioned.

It has been submitted to me that this is a case where exemplary damages ought to be awarded because of the oppressive conduct of the police constable.

Very clear definitive rules have been laid down by the House of Lords in the case of Rookes v. Barnard (1964) 1 AER 367 where Lord Devlin laid down the criteria for the award of exemplary damages. I do not think that this case discloses any circumstances for the award of exemplary damages, for such an award is made not because the person complains of oppressive conduct, but because the Defendant has behaved in an outrageous or insulting manner in carrying out his duties and has caused the Plaintiff great suffering. I am not convinced that that is so in this case, and do not consider that this is a case where exemplary damages ought to be awarded.

The Plaintiff is to have the sum of $1,229.50 in full settlement of his claim against the second named Defendant and the costs of this Action to be taxed.

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