3 days in jail for no reason

A MAN who was arrested for non-payment of a fine when in fact he had paid it 18 months before, won his constitutional motion before the Privy Council yesterday. The Law Lords ordered that a master of the High Court assess the damages for Rajesh Ramsarran. On April 30, 1986, Ramsarran opted for summary trial and pleaded guilty to a charge of possession of cocaine. The magistrate imposed a fine of $2,500 or in default nine months hard labour. Ramsarran appealed against the sentence, but on February 27 1996 — ten years later — his appeal was dismissed and the sentence was affirmed by the Court of Appeal. The court directed the fine to be paid forthwith. As Ramsarran did not have sufficient money with him to pay the fine, he was committed immediately to prison, to serve a term of nine months unless the fine was paid.

He remained in prison until the following day when the fine was paid on his behalf. On August 20, 1997, police officers arrested Ramsarran on a warrant of commitment for non-payment of the fine and took him to the Chaguanas Police Station. He was placed in a cell around 9 pm and kept there overnight. The following day, he was transferred to the Golden Grove Prison. On August 22, 1997, Ramsarran was taken to the Port-of-Spain State Prison and was released at 3.30 pm on August 23. Ramsarran complained of the extremely unpleasant and crowded conditions in which he was detained, and stated that no notice was taken by police or prison officers of his repeated assertions that the fine was paid. He said he had made repeated requests for the use of a telephone, but these were denied.

Ramsarran instituted proceedings for constitutional redress on July 27, 1998, claiming declarations for deprivation of his liberty without due process of law and his right to retain and instruct a legal adviser and to be informed of his right to do so. Justice Humphrey Stollmeyer dismissed the claim in respect of legal advice, but made a declaration in respect of wrongful deprivation of Ramsarran’s liberty and ordered that he receive damages. Ramsarran appealed and the Court of Appeal comprising Chief Justice Sat Sharma, Justice Jean Permanand, and Justice Lionel Jones, dismissed Ramsarran’s appeal on November 26, 2001. Ramsarran appealed to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council. The issue in the appeal was whether the same rights are enjoyed by a person arrested for non-payment of a fine.

According to the Law Lords, on the face of Section 5(2)(c) of the Constitution, this covers any person arrested or detained, whether on suspicion of having committed a criminal offence or for non-payment of a fine or in any other circumstances. Peter Knox, who represented the Attorney General, submitted that on a true construction of the section, the right claimed by Ramsarran should not be admitted. In their Lordships’ view, the fundamental reason Section 5 covers cases of non-payment of fines is that it is necessary to ensure that persons incorrectly arrested or detained for reasons other than suspicion of having committed a criminal offence have an effective and practical means of securing their release as soon as possible.

“If the appellant had been informed of his right to legal advice and had been given the necessary facility to contact a lawyer, the lawyer would have lent his weight to a demand that the records be checked forthwith for payment of a fine, and could have made a speedy habeas corpus application if this did not secure the appellant’s early release.” The Law Lords allowed Ramsarran’s appeal and ordered that he be paid damages to be assessed by a master of the High Court. The State has been ordered to pay Ramsarran’s costs. The Privy Council comprised Lords Bingham, Hoffmann, Scott, Rodger, and Carswell.