THE EDITOR: Recently, I read in the newspapers that a woman was awarded nearly $300,000 by the High Court for damages to herself and her children caused by ill treatment and arrest by a policeman.
It is not the first time I have read of bad policemen who, for one reason or another, treat citizens with disdain and in a rough manner and, in this case, the woman was pressurised and handcuffed to a cell in the presence of her two children causing much psychological harm to all.
The strong-minded victim decided that she was not taking it lying down especially as she felt that she was abused in all sorts and fashions for doing no wrong by an overly agressive policeman who sought to wield his aurthority without concern and in an unkind manner as the woman had just come out of surgery and could not wear a seat belt (which is another matter).
The point I am making is a simple one as I ask the question that when policemen behave in such a disgraceful manner and do not appear in Court afterwards, thus allowing the victim to obtain damages, then why must the award of the Court fall on the taxpayer as if we are fall guys.
If the policemen charge, they must be forced to appear ,and if they don't, they pay; in fact, this could be an easy way for secret deals between policemen and victims. Simply don't appear and share the goodies, of course, at taxpayers expense.
Surely, in this case it should not be for the taxpayers to pay the woman but the policeman himself who probably felt that he could treat citizens any way he wanted to and he would not have to account.
There are many cases when the police do not attend Court and this also further complicates
the efficiency of the justice system. This should not be.
Nah man, that cannot be right. Our laws need updating to ensure that he who commits the offense is the one who should pay the fine, particularly when the offender decides that he or she is not going to face the judge.
PS Moralles, Cascade