Freeport man files lawsuit over reporting of offence when he was 12

A Freeport man charged with a criminal offence as a minor in 2017 will be allowed to continue his lawsuit against the state and a media house as a High Court judge has dismissed an application to strike out his lawsuit.

In his lawsuit, the man, now 19, complained about the publication of a police press release and a news article on the release on August 17 and 18, 2017.

He contended the police’s press release and the article in the Trinidad Guardian newspaper contained material likely to identify him contrary to section 81 of the Children Act, as he was 12 years old when he was charged.

The state applied to have the lawsuit struck out for an abuse of process and because it disclosed no ground of complaint or was incapable of being defended.

It also asked for an extension of time to file its defence if it was unsuccessful in getting the lawsuit struck out.

However, Justice Karen Reid, in dismissing the state’s application, held it was “wholly inappropriate” to strike out the man’s lawsuit at this stage if he was able to prove the police disclosed information that could identify him or should have been kept confidential given that the Children Act precludes the disclosure of information that could lead to the identification of a child offender.

“If the claimant proves at trial that the police did, in fact, disclose such information, the claimant may establish a breach of confidence and the court will then consider any defence advanced by the first defendant.”

Reid added, “It is well-established that striking out is a draconian remedy which is to be exercised sparingly, and only in clear and obvious cases.

She said because of the nature of the claims and particulars set out in his case, “there was nothing unclear or confusing.”

“It is clear to me the facts the claimant is alleging. He says the press release issued by the police contained sufficient information likely to lead to his identification, that the police supplied the media with additional information as to his age, school et cetera, also likely

to lead to his identification; failed to take steps to protect his identity and

failed to investigate breaches of the act.

“Whether the claimant can prove those allegations at trial is another matter altogether, one that is not relevant to the issue as to whether there has been a sufficiently pleaded case for the first defendant to answer.”

Reid noted the Children Act was aimed at ensuring the protection of children, particularly juvenile offenders.

“It will therefore be a fact to be determined at trial whether what was contained in the press release was something that was likely to have led to the identification of the claimant.”

In his substantive lawsuit, the claimant complained after the two publications he was expelled from primary school since there was sufficient information to identify him, prohibited from contacting his classmates and subjected to ridicule and hatred.

In the strike-out application, the state argued the police’s press release did not contain material to identify the claimant and was “sufficiently vague.”

However, Reid noted that “so absolute is the requirement for the protection of the identity of the child offender that section 81 (6) is drafted in the widest possible terms.

“‘Anything likely to lead to the identification of the child’ could not be more broadly stated. It will therefore be a fact to be determined at trial whether what was contained in the press release was something that was likely to have led to the identification of the claimant.”

His attorneys also contended the police breached the Police Service Regulations by publishing information that could likely lead to his identification. However, Reid pointed out that Regulation 150 set out a disciplinary code for police officers and was not intended to prescribe a duty owed to the public so she struck out that aspect of the man’s claim.

In allowing the state to file a defence, she warned that failure to do so would result in the trial proceeding undefended against it.