SASCHA WIL­SON

More than a decade af­ter he sued the state for ma­li­cious pros­e­cu­tion, a Mara­bel­la man has won his ap­peal in the Privy Coun­cil and is set to re­ceive $300,000 in dam­ages.

In a judge­ment to­day, the five Law Lords unan­i­mous­ly over­turned a de­ci­sion by the Court of Ap­peal and re­stored the orig­i­nal or­der made by Jus­tice Joan Charles—that the state pay Kevin Stu­art dam­ages for ma­li­cious pros­e­cu­tion.

Stu­art, a labour­er, was charged with be­ing a gang mem­ber un­der the 2011 State of Emer­gency. He was ar­rest­ed at his home by the po­lice around mid­night on Au­gust 27, 2011, and tak­en to the Mara­bel­la Po­lice Sta­tion.

Stu­art claimed he was placed in a cell with a "toi­let" in the ground, which was clogged and had a foul stench. He al­so said he had slept on the ground.

Two days lat­er, PC Nicholas Phillips charged him with be­ing a gang mem­ber. He was re­mand­ed in­to cus­tody af­ter ap­pear­ing in court. 

On Sep­tem­ber 28, 2011, Di­rec­tor of Pub­lic Pros­e­cu­tions Roger Gas­pard dis­con­tin­ued the pro­ceed­ings against him and he was sub­se­quent­ly re­leased from cus­tody.

A few months lat­er on Jan­u­ary 11, 2012, Stu­art filed a law­suit through his at­tor­ney Kevin Rati­ram against the At­tor­ney-Gen­er­al for wrong­ful ar­rest, false im­pris­on­ment, and ma­li­cious pros­e­cu­tion.  He claimed that the charge was laid ma­li­cious­ly and with­out rea­son­able and prob­a­ble cause.  He sub­se­quent­ly won the mat­ter. Jus­tice Charles or­dered the state to pay $350,000 in dam­ages and costs.  How­ev­er, the State ap­pealed her rul­ing.

On Ju­ly 25, 2017, Jus­tices of Ap­peal Nolan Bereaux, Prakash Moo­sai, and Ju­dith Jones, up­held Stu­art's claim for wrong­ful ar­rest and false im­pris­on­ment, and or­dered that he be paid $50,000 in dam­ages.

But the judges up­held the State's ap­peal on the is­sue of ma­li­cious pros­e­cu­tion. Stu­art filed an ap­peal at the Privy Coun­cil and was rep­re­sent­ed by Ernest Koy­lass SC, Kevin Rati­ram, and Deb­bie Roopc­hand, in­struct­ed by Duke Street Cham­bers.

In its judg­ment, the Law Lords out­lined five rea­sons why the T&T Ap­peal Court should not have over­turned Charles' find­ings.  Thomas Roe KC, in­struct­ed by Charles Rus­sel Speechlys LLP, rep­re­sent­ed the State. 

Com­ment­ing on the client's vic­to­ry, Rati­ram said it has been a long hard road for Stu­art.  

"I am in­deed pleased that our high­est court up­held Jus­tice Charles’ find­ings of fab­ri­ca­tion," he said.

He added: “I now ea­ger­ly wait to see what ac­tion, if any, will be tak­en against this rogue of­fi­cer.”