A Penal resident who was kept for 15 hours in police custody in 2004 after being arrested on an invalid warrant has been awarded $55,094 in damages for false imprisonment. Nankishoer Rajpath was awarded the sum on Friday when he succeeded in his complaint against the State.
San Fernando High Court Judge Joan Charles held that Rajpath’s Constitutional rights were infringed when he was falsely imprisoned on July 22, 2004, on a warrant issued in 2002. Charles said, “A lapse of almost two years between issue and execution is surely a matter for investigation and to subject a man who thought himself to be otherwise free of this burden, is an affront to his right to liberty as guaranteed” by the Constitution.
Rajpath, 50, through attorney Cindy Bhagwandeen, had filed a personal action against the State seeking damages for unlawful arrest and detention or false imprisonment and breach of his Constitutional rights.
On October 25, 2002, Rajpath was convicted on the charge of felling trees without proper permission. He was ordered to pay $1,000 in fines and $920 in compensation before November 22, 2002. The Penal resident paid the fines on December 23, 2002 after the stipulated deadline. On December 18, 2002 a warrant was issued in the Princes Town Magistrates’ Court for Rajpath’s arrest. The warrant was executed some two years later.
Charles, in her eight-page judgment, ruled that “to execute a warrant almost two years after the date of issue without properly verifying it was an act of gross incompetency.” During the trial, police testified that the task of checking whether a warrant was in effect or cancelled would entail an officer manually going through “possibly hundreds of paper warrants in order to find the relevant one.”
Charles admitted such a task would be “daunting.”She did, however, take issue with the State’s position that it was incumbent upon Rajpath to confirm and ensure the court’s records were updated with his payment.
The judge also ruled that it was incumbent on the warrant officer at the time to have been more diligent in investigating a warrant, issued two years prior, to determine its validity. Prior to being taken into custody, Rajpath and his wife attempted to produce the receipt indicating the payment was made but, they were denied the opportunity to do so.“The Court considers this a blatant disregard by the officers of (Rajpath’s) liberty,” Charles said. (TT.Guardian)
