Young v Gordon

• Jurisdiction: Cayman Islands
• Judge: (Schofield, J.)
• Judgment Date: 12 July 1995
• Date: 12 July 1995
• Court: Grand Court (Cayman Islands)

Grand Court

(Schofield, J.)

YOUNG

and

GORDON

P. Lamontagne, Q.C., and G.W. Hampson for the plaintiff;

W. Helfrecht, Crown Counsel, for the defendant.

Cases cited:

(1) Associated Provncl. Picture Houses Ltd. v. Wednesbury Corp., [1948] 1 K.B. 223; [1947] 2 All E.R. 680, applied.

(2) Cedeno v. O”BrienUNK(1964), 7 W.I.R. 192, considered.

(3) G v. S, 1992–93 CILR 203, dictum of Georges J.A. considered.

(4) Hussien v. Chong Fook Kam, [1970] A.C. 942; [1969] 3 All E.R. 1626, applied.

(5) McLean (D.D.) v. R., 1952–79 CILR 382, considered.

(6) R. v. SpraggUNK(1975), 23 W.I.R. 371.

(7) Rea v. Gibbs, 1994–95 CILR 158.

Legislation construed:

Police Law (Law 5 of 1976), s.24(4): The relevant terms of this sub-section are set out at page 450, lines 19–22.

s.33: The relevant terms of this section are set out at page 450, lines 24–27.

Police-arrest-unlawful arrest-arresting officer bears burden of showing actually suspected on reasonable grounds that suspect committed offence-arrest unlawful if suspect establishes officer exercised discretion in bad faith, considered irrelevant matters or disregarded relevant ones-unlawful arrest creates liability for false imprisonment regardless of duration of detention

Police-arrest-reasonable suspicion-reasonable suspicion more than mere suspicion but not same as prima facie proof-suspicion may be based on matters inadmissible in evidence whereas prima facie proof to be based on admissible evidence

The plaintiff brought an action against the defendant for false imprisonment.

The plaintiff was arrested following a complaint against him that he had stolen a $100 bill belonging to the complainant. She alleged that, while she was paying for her purchases at a supermarket, she had left her money on the counter and the plaintiff (who was behind her in the queue) had paid for his own purchases with it. There was evidence of the incident on videotape but it was inconclusive. When questioned by the defendant, a police officer, the plaintiff denied the theft and asserted that he had paid for his shopping with $100 of his own money in order to obtain change to pay a debt to a colleague. He claimed to have had approximately $228 on his person but when asked by the defendant to show him what he had in his possession, he showed him considerably less than that sum. The defendant claimed that this proved that the plaintiff was lying, whereas the plaintiff claimed that he had only shown him some of the money on his person. The defendant arrested the plaintiff, who was granted bail shortly after, and in due course a decision was made not to prosecute him. He then brought the present proceedings for false imprisonment.

He submitted that the defendant had to show that he had suspected him on plainly reasonable grounds and had failed to do so, and that since the arrest was thereby unlawful, the defendant was liable for false imprisonment regardless of the length of time for which he had been detained.

Held, dismissing the suit:

(1) The defendant had lawfully arrested the plaintiff without a warrant since he had discharged the requisite burden of showing that he had actually suspected that the plaintiff had committed the offence and that he

had reasonable cause for that suspicion; furthermore, the plaintiff had failed to satisfy the burden of showing that the defendant had improperly exercised his discretion by exercising it in bad faith, considering irrelevant matters or disregarding relevant ones. However, had the arrest been unlawful, the defendant would have been liable for false imprisonment regardless of the length of time for which the plaintiff was detained (page 447, lines 2–7;page 451, lines 3–34;page 454, line 45 – page 455, line 14).

(2) Reasonable suspicion was more than mere suspicion though it could not be equated with prima facie proof. In addition, prima facie proof consisted of admissible evidence whereas suspicion could take into account matters that could not be put in evidence. Since the video recording of the incident was inconclusive and the discrepancy between the sum of money the plaintiff claimed to have had on his person and the sum he showed the defendant, although not establishing that the plaintiff had lied, was suspicious, there were reasonable grounds for the defendant”s suspicion and the action would be dismissed (page 452, lines 6–8; lines 36–39; page 454, lines 1–5;page 454, line 38 – page 455, line 3).

SCHOFIELD, J.: On July 5th, 1995 I dismissed this action with costs
and I now give my reasons for doing so.
This is an action for false imprisonment against the defendant who is an
45	officer with the Royal Cayman Islands Police Force. The plaintiff is a

prison officer serving at Northward Prison, Grand Cayman, and was
arrested by the defendant on suspicion of theft on December 5th, 1992. His
detention thereafter, before bail was granted by the defendant, lasted for
no longer than about 5 or 10 minutes but if the arrest was unlawful as
5	alleged by the plaintiff, the length of time he was held thereafter is
immaterial to the question of liability. Even a temporary detention which
is unjustified in law amounts to false imprisonment.
The events leading up to the plaintiff”s arrest are these. On the day
before his arrest, December 4th, 1992, the plaintiff went to Foster”s Food
10	Fair in the industrial area of George Town on his way to duty at Northward
Prison. He had with him roughly $231 which included two $100 bills.
Because he owed a colleague, Glendon Binns, $40, the plaintiff, who was
merely purchasing bananas for $2.17, paid with a $100 bill to get the
change.
15	Immediately ahead of the plaintiff at the checkout was the complainant,
Judith McLaughlin. The plaintiff knew her and they acknowledged each
other. After the complainant had bought her goods the plaintiff says he put
his $100 bill on the counter and the cashier put the bananas in a bag and
placed the bag on top of his money. The cashier then moved the bag, took
20	up the $100 bill and gave the plaintiff his change.
Later that day, at about 5 p.m., the complainant and the cashier visited
the plaintiff at the prison. The complainant accused the plaintiff of stealing
her $100 note, alleging that the plaintiff paid for his bananas with her
money. After being asked by the plaintiff whether she had not seen him
25	take the money from his pocket the cashier said she was Spanish, did not
speak English well and was not sure to whom the money belonged. The
complainant became noisy and the plaintiff ordered them to leave, but the
complainant continued to complain to his fellow officers as she was
leaving the prison that he had stolen her money.
30	The complainant reported the matter to the police soon afterwards and
the defendant, who was on duty in a patrol car, received the report by
radio. He went to visit the plaintiff at the prison shortly after 7 p.m. on the
same evening. He told the plaintiff of the complainant”s report and the
plaintiff denied stealing the $100. According to the plaintiff, at that stage
35	he took the receipt for the bananas out of his pocket and gave it to the
defendant. He also said that he took out the change from the $100, with
some smaller change, and showed it to the defendant. He had put the $40
for Mr. Binns in a different pocket and intended to give it to him when Mr.
Binns reported for duty at 11 p.m. The defendant says that he was shown
40	money by the plaintiff, not at the prison but later at the police station. I
shall return to this aspect of the case because it is not without significance.
The defendant wanted to take the receipt away as an exhibit but the
plaintiff was reluctant to let him do so. After exchanges which involved
the intervention of one of the plaintiff”s senior officers it was agreed that
45	the plaintiff would follow the defendant to Bodden Town Police Station to

get a copy of the receipt. Before we leave the prison it is necessary to note
a further divergence of evidence between plaintiff and defendant. The
plaintiff alleges that the defendant told him that he knew the plaintiff had
stolen the $100 and that the plaintiff should give it back because the
5	complainant at that stage did not want to press charges, she merely wanted
her money back. The defendant testified that he told the plaintiff that if he
had taken the money then he should give it back to prevent further
investigation because the complainant only wanted her money back at that
stage.
10	According to the defendant, it was while they were at Bodden Town
Police Station on the evening of the incident that he asked the plaintiff to
show him all the

...