Arrested father awarded $$

A Master of the High Court has ordered the State to compensate a man who was wrongfully arrested for breaching a maintenance order back in 2013. Master Martha Alexander ordered damages for Terry Andrews for the infringements of his constitutional rights.

Andrews is to receive general damages in the sum of $30,000 for his unlawful detention, as well as vindicatory damages in the sum of $15,000. Andrews was represented by attorney Peter Taylor.

In her assessment on the quantum of compensation to be awarded, Alexander said the facts in the case were “unfortunate and regrettable.”

In October 2012, Andrews had been ordered to pay $250 per week for maintenance for his child and $750 per term for school fees until the child started primary school.

He said he had been diligently abiding by the terms of the order. However, on August 7, 2013, the mother of his child filed a summons alleging he was in breach of the order.

A warrant was issued by the court and on September 19, 2013, around 6 am, Andrews was arrested by police at his home. He was taken to the Belmont police station where he stayed until he was taken to the family court and placed in a cell, where he remained for two more hours before taken before the magistrate.

In court, the magistrate pointed out that Andrews was not in breach of the maintenance order and ordered his immediate release.

She said the warrant was issued in error and she apologised to Andrews.

He filed a lawsuit alleging that the actions of the servants of the State led to his wrongful arrest, false imprisonment, humiliation, embarrassment, emotional and psychological distress.

By consent, judgment was entered against the State on July 23, 2018, by Justice Nadia Kangaloo, who ordered that damages be assessed by a master.

Andrews was the only witness at the assessment trial and he provided documents in relation to the payments he made, a letter from the administrative secretary to the Chief Justice acknowledging that there were consistent payments made by him along with an apology for the oversight.

There was also a letter from the Ombudsman which said that the Family Court, through its manager, acknowledged that it was responsible for his arrest and incarceration and had submitted a report to the Chief Justice. The report was also provided.

In her ruling, Alexander said the period of detention was considered as well as the apologies, which were given without hesitation and immediately offered on the error being discovered, in her award of damages and vindicatory damages.

As it related to the latter, Alexander said while it was not considered necessary to make the additional award, “it was not for punitive purposes, but to emphasise the gravity of the breach and the importance of the constitutional right infringed.”