Senior Reporter
derek.aching@guardian.co.tt
A prison officer and a police officer have lost their separate but intertwined cases over an incident in which both were wounded when the police officer and his colleagues attempted to enter an apartment the prison officer was staying at.
Delivering a judgment late last month, High Court Judge Devindra Rampersad dismissed a case brought by prison officer Reuel Acco against PC Vishal Singh, three of his colleagues and the State for negligence; and another brought by Singh against Acco for assault.
The outcome of both cases was based on Justice Rampersad’s inability to determine which of the officers was at fault from the evidence presented before him.
Justice Rampersad said, “The unfortunate result is that both men sustained serious gunshot injuries in an incident the precise sequence of which the evidence does not permit this court to reliably reconstruct.”
“The court’s inability to determine that sequence cannot, however, relieve either claimant of the burden of proving the cause of action advanced in his respective claim,” he added.
The cases stemmed from an incident at Damarie Hill, Sangre Grande, on August 10, 2015.
Singh and his colleagues, assigned to the Eastern Division Task Force (EDTF), were responding to a report of men armed with firearms being at an apartment building.
Singh and his colleagues claimed they were greeted by gunshots when they knocked on the door of an apartment. They claimed that Acco opened the door and continued firing at them and they returned fire in self-defence. Acco and Singh both sustained gunshot wounds.
Acco claimed that Singh and his colleagues never identified themselves and he believed they (the officers) were connected to a group of prisoners, who had previously threatened him while he was on duty at the Golden Grove Prison in Arouca.
Acco claimed the officers fired first and he shot back using a pistol issued to him by the T&T Prison Service after reporting the threats.
He claimed he surrendered after he realised the men were police officers.
He alleged that he was handcuffed although he was wounded and claimed Singh repeatedly kicked him before he was taken for medical treatment.
In attempting to determine the cases, Justice Rampersad noted that he had difficulties with the evidence of all the witnesses and that there was insufficient forensic evidence to help determine whose account was more credible.
“The court makes no general finding that any witness was dishonest, and none is required. Each side has advanced an account which the objective evidence contradicts in a material respect,” Justice Rampersad said.
“The court is therefore left without a reliable account from either side, and without independent material capable of supplying the deficiency,” he added.
Based on the outcome of the case, the parties were ordered to bear their own legal costs.
Acco was represented by Keith Scotland, SC, Asha Watkins-Montserin and Sara Carraz. Singh was represented by Ganesh Saroop and Anju Ramkissoon.
The Office of the Attorney General was represented by Coreen Findley, Jinai Chong Sing, Murvani Ojah Maharaj, and Savitri Maharaj.
