When the em­ploy­ee of the Sana-tan Dhar­ma Ma­ha Sab­ha (SD­MA) wres­tled Tu­na­puna Hin­du School prin­ci­pal Si­ta Ga­jad­hars­ingh-Nan­ga to the ground, the em­ploy­ee clear­ly com­mit­ted an as­sault, for which she should be held ac­count­able.

There are two as­pects to an as­sault in crim­i­nal law. In the first, the de­fen­dant in­ten­tion­al­ly or sub­jec­tive­ly reck­less­ly caus­es an­oth­er per­son to fear un­law­ful per­son­al vio- lence. In the sec­ond, the de­fen­dant in­ten­tion­al­ly or sub­jec­tive­ly reck­less­ly ap­plies un­law­ful force to an­oth­er. This sec­ond as­pect is the crime of bat­tery.

These are sep­a­rate crimes cov­ered by the term "com­mon as­sault." It is ev­i­dent that the em­ploy­ee has com­mit­ted the crime of as­sault. She can be charged with the crime of as-sault. In ad­di­tion, where some­one is em­ployed un­der a con­tract of em­ploy­ment, then the em­ploy­er is vic­ari- ous­ly li­able for the wrongs com­mit­ted by the em­ploy­ee when act­ing in the course of her/his em­ploy­ment.

The em­ploy­ee com­mit­ted a crime dur­ing the course of her em­ploy­ment. In ef­fect, the SD­MA is vic­ar­i­ous­ly li­able for the crime of its em- ploy­ee. Con­se­quent­ly, it should be sued by Ga­jad­hars­ingh-Nan­ga. The ev­i­dence al­so dis­clos­es a pat­tern of ha­rass­ment of the prin­ci­pal. This, too, is a crim­i­nal of­fence for which the SD­MA is li­able in law. Ga­jad­hars­ingh-Nan­ga's lawyer should ini­ti­ate crim­i­nal pro­ceed­ings against both the em­ploy­ee and the Ma­ha Sab­ha.

Ken­neth As­see

Port-of-Spain