Judge: No law barring public from recording cops

Senior Reporter

derek.achong@guardian.co.tt

A High Court Judge has sought to remind police officers that there is no prohibition against members of the public recording them while they are performing their duties in a public place.

Justice Frank Seepersad gave the advice as he awarded over $90,000 in compensation each to two businessmen, who were arrested for recording officers while they were detaining social activist Inshan Ishmael in 2017.

He ordered the compensation for Anzar Mohammed and Eisa Ghany as he upheld their wrongful arrest and false imprisonment case against the State after a brief trial, yesterday afternoon.

Justice Seepersad said: “There is absolutely nothing wrong with video taping events that take place in a public forum especially involving the police.”

He suggested that such activity may also be beneficial to police officers.

“It protects them as well from allegations of behaviour they may not have engaged in. They can not feel threatened,” he said.

The outcome of the case means that the State has had to pay over $500,000 in compensation for Ishmael’s arrest as he (Ishmael) was previously awarded over $310,000 in compensation by Justice Seepersad for wrongful arrest, false imprisonment, and malicious prosecution.

The duo was arrested and charged with obstructing a police officer in October 2017, when Ishmael was detained by police officers at his Barakah Grounds complex in Endeavour, Chaguanas.

Ishmael’s arrest was over an incident, which occurred at a sports and family day in Charlieville, six months earlier.

Ishmael was charged with possession of a firearm to endanger life, possession of ammunition to endanger life and assaulting a man at the family day, who claimed that Ishmael threatened him with a firearm.

The duo, who were Ishmael’s tenants, were charged with obstructing the officers after being detained for 10 hours.

Ishmael made several court appearances before a magistrate upheld a no-case submission and dismissed the charges.

Three months after Justice Seepersad upheld Ishmael’s civil lawsuit over his arrest in 2022, the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP) decided to discontinue charges against two businessmen, who were represented by attorney Richard Jaggasar.

In upholding the duo’s case, Justice Seepersad ruled that they were forthright and honest while giving evidence.

“There was no evidence to suggest that the claimants were being disrespectful or used derogatory language,” he said.

Seepersad also ruled that the claims by the officer who arrested them, then-Assistant Superintendent (ASP) and current Senior Supt Richard Smith, were not plausible based on the evidence.

“It is unlikely and improbable that these two claimants came up to Mr Smith. If they were recording it is unlikely that they were 18 to 20 inches from him,” Justice Seepersad said.

Noting that Smith was accompanied by a large group of colleagues including some who were heavily armed, Justice Seepersad said: “It was highly unlikely that they would have the temerity to go so close to the vehicle.”

While he accepted that the job of a police officer is difficult, Justice Seepersad noted that they (officers) had a duty to act with reason and in a measured manner.

“They have significant powers but these must be cautiously exercised and done in a manner that is always fair and forthright,” he said.

He added that abuse of power by officers would not assist them in the fight against crime.

“If the public cannot respect police officers the level of cooperation the police need to tackle the onslaught of criminality will not be forthcoming,” he said.

In upholding the case, Justice Seepersad ordered $55,000 in general damages and $15,000 in aggravated damages.

He also ordered $10,000 in exemplary damages to highlight his abhorrence of the conduct of the officers.

He reiterated calls for Parliament to consider passing legislation to make errant officers pay such damages for their unlawful conduct as opposed to it being paid by the State.

“Until people are affected in their pockets, behaviour patterns would not change,” he said.

The State was also ordered to pay $10,000 to each of the men, which represents their legal costs for defending the charge before it was discontinued. It was also ordered to pay their legal costs for the civil lawsuit.

Mohammed was seeking additional compensation as he claimed that he had an eye condition, which was exacerbated by the stress from his arrest and prosecution.

Justice Seepersad declined to grant such as he noted that there was insufficient evidence linking his condition to the incident.

Mohammed and Ghany were also represented by Andre Cole and Lutchmi Sookram. The Office of the Attorney General was represented by Candice Alexander and Kadine Matthew.

The post Judge: No law barring public from recording cops first appeared on CNC3.