Compensation for La Brea sisters as ‘owing’ sou sou hand leads to bad larceny charge

TWO La Brea women who were arrested and charged with a slew of offences, including larceny, after one of them took a flat-screen television from the home of a friend who failed to contribute to a weekly sou sou hand, will each receive compensation for malicious prosecution.

On Tuesday, Justice Frank Seepersad, in an oral decision, ordered the State to pay to Nafeeka and Joy Huggins a total of $110,000 plus interest and costs for their November 18, 2011 arrest and detention for four days on charges of resisting arrest, assaulting the police, escaping lawful custody, using obscene language and larceny of the 42-inch flat-screen television.

The sisters were eventually cleared of the charges and filed a malicious prosecution claim against the State.

In his ruling, Seepersad said the law on malicious prosecution was clear and the court had to determine if the police had reasonable and probable cause to charge the women and if the charges were maliciously laid on the part of the officers.

He said he paid attention to the station diary entries presented at the trial which was held virtually last week.

Seepersad said he also considered the evidence of the women who were demonstrably calm and rational and willing to comply with the police on the night of the arrest.

He said he found it difficult the women had engaged in the type of behaviour alleged by the police when they voluntarily allowed the police into their home without a warrant.

Seepersad also said, based on the evidence, the issue of the sou sou came up and the fact that the television was taken by one of the sisters until the obligation to pay the outstanding “hand” was met.

He said the essential elements of “self-remedy and self-help” could only be exercised in the clearest of circumstances and warned that not because a sou sou hand was owing, anyone can take it upon themselves to take up an item such as the television.

He said charges of breaking and entering or any associated charges could have been used, but in this case it was difficult to understand how the police could have reasonably considered guilt of larceny when Nafeeka said she did not intend to keep the television, “though unjustified,” until the hand was paid.

Seepersad said there was no urgency to lay the charges, and the police could have taken the television pending further investigations as their police that they intervened to “keep the peace” in the community was “highly unusual” given that they did not speak with Nafeeka before arresting her and her sister.

“Police officers exercise tremendous powers in the discharge of their constitutional obligations. This imposes on them an obligation to act fairly and with utmost impartiality.” He said the rule of law mandated that police act without bias and consistent with their oath.

“There can be no room for insinuation of impropriety or use of personal relationship to colour the way they interact with the public or investigate a matter.”

He also said the search of the fridge in the women’s home was “odd” especially when the television was on the bed.

“The court is not comfortable with the position advanced by the defendants as it related to the factual matrix of what unfolded.”

He also said other elements of the arrest and rationale for the other charges lacked clarity. He believes the charges were laid because one of the sisters used her cellphone to take photos of what was happening at the home.

Referring to international events involving improper police behaviour being captured by civilians, he said it was “more likely than not” the officers took issue with one of the sisters’ actions leading to an altercation.

In her evidence, Nafeeka said their now-deceased mother operated the weekly sou sou which saw a payout of $12,000. The television's owner collected her "hand" but after that failed to contribute to the sou sou.

Nafeeka also said she knew the money was used to buy the television which she took until the woman paid her money.

The sisters were represented by attorney Carl Mattis and James Philbert while the State was represented by attorneys Ebo Jones and Ryan Grant.