The Port Authority has been ordered to pay a little over $100,000 in compensation to a woman from Tobago and her young daughter, who were assaulted by security guards at the Scarborough Port in 2014.
In a 66-page judgment delivered at the Hall of Justice in Port-of-Spain on Tuesday, High Court Judge Ricky Rahim ruled that by using excessive force the security guards assaulted and battered the woman who cannot be named to protect the identities of her children who are still minors.
According to the evidence in the case, the incident occurred on January 12, 2014, as the woman, who was pregnant at the time, was seeking to travel between Scarborough and Port-of-Spain with her mother, her cousin-in-law and five young children.
The woman allegedly passed a security checkpoint and attempted to go to a counter to ask if they could board despite being late.
A security guard intervened and told her boarding was closed.
The woman claimed that she gave her seven-year-old daughter her phone to record the discourse and the officer wrung the child’s left hand and wrestled the phone from her.
The woman attempted to retrieve the phone from the guard and an altercation ensued. Other officers intervened before the woman was restrained and taken to a police station.
The woman claimed that while at the station she was blindfolded and beaten by a police officer.
She was charged with assaulting a security guard, failing to give her full name and address and for failing to abide by a lawful direction. The charges were eventually dismissed in October 2016. The woman also had a miscarriage.
The woman sued the Port Authority for the alleged assault and battery by the security officers and the Office of the Attorney General for the alleged false imprisonment and malicious prosecution committed by the police. The woman sued on behalf of herself, her seven-year-old daughter and her four-year-old daughter, who was also present.
In his judgement, Rahim suggested that the woman’s issues in accurately narrating the events at trial may have been the result of the trauma, emotion, and confusion associated with it.
Noting that she was passionate in her answers at trial, Rahim said, “Such passion can, given the right occasion in the context of those who are not familiar with the individual, be mistaken for aggression.”
While Rahim ruled that the security officers were right to stop her at the port, he ruled that they used excessive force in detaining her.
“Despite the first claimant’s refusal to comply with the instructions of the Estate Constables, the court finds that the disproportionate force used by Estate Constables to restrain and/or repel the claimant was arbitrary, oppressive and unconstitutional,” Rahim said.
Rahim dismissed her claims against the police as he ruled that the evidence of her injuries did not correspond with her claims over the violence allegedly meted out to her.
He also ruled that she had not been falsely imprisoned or maliciously prosecuted as police had reasonable and probable cause to detain and charge her.
While Rahim upheld the assault and battery claim brought by the woman and her elder daughter, he rejected the claim for the woman’s younger daughter as there was no evidence that she was involved in the fracas.
Rahim ordered the authority to pay the woman $50,000 in general damages and her daughter $15,000. They were each ordered to receive $30,000 and $20,000 in exemplary damages for the officers’ abuse of authority.
The authority was also ordered to pay the family’s legal costs for the aspect of their case that dealt with the conduct of its security officers.
The woman was represented by Steven Mawer and Elena Da Silva while Joel Roper represented the authority.
