Man loses lawsuit on gang charge

A PRINCES Town mason who sued the State after he was arrested on gang charges in August 2011 has lost his claim of malicious prosecution.

Jason Simmons sued the State, alleging that the police acted with malice when they charged him on August 26, 2011, two days after he was arrested at Cacique Drive.

A month later, Simmons was freed of the charge after the Director of Public Prosecutions discontinued the case against him because of “insufficient evidence.”

In a recent decision, Justice David Harris ruled that while Simmons proved the absence of reasonable and probable cause in the act of charging him, there was no proof of malice on the part of the police. He said, based on the evidence of the police who arrested and charged Simmons, it pointed to “perhaps poor investigation arguably, ineptitude maybe, honest mistake perhaps, but not malice.”

In ruling against him, the judge said Simmons needed to find solace and redemption in the public disposal of his case at the magistrates’ court.

Simmons was allegedly known to the police, having pleaded guilty to several offences in the past, and had pending charges against him. He claimed it was for this reason the police acted with malice when they charged him with being a member of a known gang in the Princes Town region.

He denied being a gang member, and did not deny his past, but said he knew the people mentioned by the police, including a known gang leader – who is now dead – having gone to school with the man.

In his ruling, Harris said to prove malice, it was not enough for Simmons to point to inconsistencies or contradictions in the State’s evidence.

Harris he could not “stress the point enough” that it was not required of any investigator to test every possible relevant fact before taking action.

“His duty is not to ascertain whether there is a defence (there is nearly always a ‘defence’), but whether there is a reasonable and probable cause for a prosecution,” the judge said.

He also said the State did not explain what the DPP meant by “insufficient evidence,” but while the police did have the suspicion and belief Simmons was involved in gang-related activity, it was not sufficient to sustain the charge.

Having lost his claim of malice on the part of the police in charging him, Harris said Simmons could not obtain judgment in his favour. As a result, he was only made to pay two-thirds of the State’s costs in defending the lawsuit.