A HIGH COURT judge has condemned the “shoddy investigation” of a family of police officers who were arrested and charged for an alleged assault in 2016.
On June 17, Justice Kevin Ramcharan ruled there was improper motive for prosecuting Sgt Rameshwar and his children, PCs Tia Gopaul and Anil Gopaul.
He has ordered compensation for the three amounting to over $.8 million, including interest of 2.5 per cent per annum, from April 26, 2022, to the date he delivered his reasons.
Ramcharan held there were “improper motives” in laying the charges against the three in 2017, a year after the alleged assault, and drew “adverse inferences” from the re-laying of the charges against them in 2018 after the case was initially dismissed in the magistrates’ court.
The second time around, the case against the Gopaul family was dismissed when attorneys for the Director of Public Prosecution told the court it was not proper for the charges to be re-laid as they had previously been dismissed.
Ramcharan said correspondence between Insp Ken Lutchman, who charged the three, and the police Professional Standards Bureau (PSB) was not disclosed, nor was there a record of correspondence with the Office of the DPP on the relaying of the charges.
“This was crucial evidence, in the court's view, in light of Lutchman's assertion that it was on those instructions that the charges were re-laid, despite the fact that it was the prosecutor from the Office of the DPP who stated that it was wrong to have re-laid the charges.
“In the absence of these, the court is minded to draw adverse inferences, especially with respect to the relaying of the charges.
“In the circumstances, the court is of the view that there was improper motive on the part of Sgt Lutchman in prosecuting the claimants.
“There can be no doubt about it with respect to the relaid charges, but the court, in the absence of the evidence above, is minded to hold that there were improper motives in the original laying of the charges when taken in conjunction with the manner in which the investigation was conducted,” the judge said in his reasons for granting judgment in favour of the three.
He was also critical of the State’s defence of Tia Gopaul’s claim for special damages for loss of earnings after she was suspended.
“The defendant submitted that there was no evidence as to the second claimant's salary before the event, and therefore she should not receive any compensation at all.
“That is an entirely unfortunate submission. The defendant states that it has no knowledge of the truth of that claim.
“That is clearly not the case. It is to be remembered that the defendant is sued on behalf of the State of Trinidad and Tobago.
“The second claimant was in the employ of the State. It was clearly within the knowledge of the State as to whether the second claimant was paid, and secondly, what her salary would have been during the time of non-payment.
“The court views such non-admission as an effective admission, as it is clearly and demonstrably not true.
“The cou
