Sharma creates legal history

JUDGES in Trinidad and Tobago have the power to grant exemplary damages in cases where a person’s constitutional rights have been infringed. In the past, judges awarded compensatory damages and not exemplary damages. Chief Justice Sat Sharma and Justice of Appeal Wendell Kangaloo changed that two years ago. Yesterday, five British Law Lords ruled in favour of the Chief Justice and Kangaloo, saying judges in this country can award exemplary damages in constitutional cases. The Privy Council dismissed the appeal brought by the Attorney General against this argument and ordered the State to pay costs to Siewchand Ramanoop, a man who was battered by the police in what the Judicial Committee described as “outrageous conduct” by a policeman.

On the evening of November 10, 2000, Ramanoop, 35, was in a bar when he had an altercation with a man. He left and went home. Sometime later, there was a knock on his door. He opened the door and was confronted by two men, one in a police uniform. Before he could say anything, PC Rahim slapped him across the face and neck, turned him around, handcuffed him and started beating him. Ramanoop was clothed only in his underwear. He was pushed back into the house where he was beaten again. PC Rahim told Ramanoop to take a shirt and pants because “he was going to be locked up.” Ramanoop was taken outside and shoved into the back seat of a car and taken to the Gasparillo Police Station. On the way, he was again beaten by PC Rahim. At the police station, Ramanoop’s head was rammed against a wall, causing a wound from which blood gushed at once. He was then handcuffed to an iron bar.

PC Rahim then poured rum over his head, causing the wound to burn and blood and rum to run into his eyes. He was taken to a bathroom and soaked in the shower while PC Rahim spun him around by the shoulders until he was dizzy. Ramanoop was told to sign a statement and when he refused, he was slapped on his head. Ramanoop was losing blood and feeling weak, so he signed the statement. Ramanoop filed a constitutional motion on January 15, 2001, seeking among other things, exemplary damages. The Attorney General did not dispute the facts and agreed to a consent judgment. On May 2, 2001, Justice Nolan Bereaux awarded Ramanoop $18,000 for the deprivation of his liberty for two hours and $35,000 for the assault.

He held he had no jurisdiction to award exemplary damages, although PC Rahim’s conduct was described as outrageous and in an ordinary action would attract an award of exemplary damages. Ramanoop appealed and the Court of Appeal, by a 2-1 majority, agreed that the appellant must be awarded exemplary damages. CJ Sharma and Justice Kangaloo agreed, while Madame Justice Margot Warner dissented. The Appeal Court remitted the matter to Justice Bereaux for the assessment of exemplary/vindicatory damages. The Attorney General appealed to the Privy Council. The appeal was heard before Lords Nicholls, Hoffmann, Scott, Brown, and Baroness Hale.

James Dingemans appeared for the Attorney General, while Anand Ramlogan represented Ramanoop. In the judgment, Lord Nicholls said an award of compensation will go some distance towards vindicating the infringed constitutional right. He said the fact that the right violated was a constitutional right adds an extra dimension to the wrong. “An additional award, not necessarily of substantial size, may be needed to reflect the sense of public outrage, emphasise the importance of the constitutional right and the gravity of the breach and deter further breaches,” Lord Nicholls added.