State ordered to return controversial Range Rover

FOURTEEN years after a controversial Range Rover was alleged to have been stolen from the United Kingdom, the State has been ordered to “deliver up” the vehicle to former Independent Liberal Party (IPL) deputy leader Anna Deonarine.

This comes after the State conceded liability. As a result, Justice of Appeal Charmaine Pemberton and Gillian Lucky ordered judgment for Deonarine’s company D and I Management Services (DIMS).

They also ordered that damages on the issue of liability are to be assessed by a High Court master.

Deonarine’s company had appealed a decision of the High Court to dismiss its application to have the State’s defence struck out.

The Range Rover controversy made headlines locally and in the UK in 2013. Then attorney general Anand Ramlogan, SC, said he intended to make arrangements to have the vehicle shipped back to the UK while he said he intended to call on Deonarine to explain how she ended up buying the Range Rover, reports at the time said.

It was alleged that the vehicle was stolen from Birmingham on May 15, 2008. The original owner allegedly sought to have the vehicle returned to the UK.

In a lawsuit against the State in March 2022, Deonarine, a director of DIMS, said the unregistered vehicle was purchased in March 2009 for 24,000 British pounds. The relevant import duty, tax and VAT were paid and the vehicle was inspected and registered by the Licensing Division.

In November 2011, officers from the police service’s stolen vehicle unit went to DIMS’s premises and took possession of the Range Rover (PCM 1100).

The company’s claim said at the time, the vehicle was valued at $600,000. Its claim said the police failed to provide documentation to justify the seizure of the vehicle.

In its defence, the State contended that the police received information the vehicle was stolen from the UK. It also said it was also positively identified by the legal representative for the vehicle’s owner.

It also denied DIMS’s claim.

In seeking to strike out the State’s defence, DIMS’s attorneys argued that the police had to justify its detention of the vehicle since there was “no general power” to keep property that was not subject to any charge or was not proven to be stolen.

They also argued that the Limitation of Certain Action Act “extinguished” the right, title and interest of the original owners of the vehicle and the time for them to bring any action for the recovery of the Range Rover had expired in 2013.

At the appeal, the State conceded liability, DIMS’s appeal was allowed and the order of the trial judge was set aside. The Appeal Court also ordered, on agreement, for the State’s defence to be struck out.

At the time, Deonarine had been cleared of criminal wrongdoing by the Director of Public Prosecutions. DIMS was represented by Gerald Ramdeen and Dayadai Harripaul. The State was represented by Savitri Maharaj and Natoya Moore.