Taxman awarded $135,000 for wrongful arrest

A High Court judge said yesterday that he was puzzled why a senior police officer would charge a senior tax officer employed with the Board of Inland Revenue (BIR) with larceny, when there was no evidence to support such a charge. Justice Sebastian Ventour then concluded that Inspector Carlton Williams could not have been acting to further the ends of justice when he did so. The judge made these comments in his judgment while ordering the State to pay former tax officer Surujpaul Ramsingh $60,000 with interest for malicious prosecution plus $75,000 legal costs at the Magistrates’ Court and costs to be taxed. Justice Ventour explained that he had difficulty with Williams’ action in the matter, noting that a prudent officer would not have charged Ramsingh.

The judge observed that Williams appeared to be intelligent but he (the judge) could not understand why Williams insisted on prosecuting Ramsingh. The facts are that Ramsingh, who was about fourth in line to be a commissioner of the BIR, was arrested on June 16, 1993 and charged with the larceny of four tax return documents which were found at his apartment in D’Abadie. Another senior tax officer had explained to Williams that it was standard procedure for an officer to have such documents in his possession since the proper return forms had been properly lodged at the BIR office. During the hearing at the magistrates’ court on July 11, 1995, the Director of Public Prosecutions  conceded that there was no case against Ramsingh and the charge was dropped.

Ramsingh then sued the State and his attorneys Israel Khan SC and  Larry Lalla, instructed by Dawn Mohan, argued the matter in the Port-of-Spain First Civil Court. Khan contended that Williams charged Ramsingh believing that by laying a charge against a high profile officer of the BIR will assist him in getting promotion. Khan supported his contention by pointing out that Williams did not have reason and probable cause to charge Ramsingh for larceny, and that Williams did not have an honest belief in the charge. Khan further argued that no prudent officer properly seized of the facts would have charged Ramsingh and that Williams was hell bent on pursuing an unfounded prosecution. He said that having regard to Williams’ conduct in the matter,  inferences could be drawn that Williams had malice towards Ramsingh.