Chef can appeal for more compensation

The Court of Appeal has granted conditional leave to a chef convicted in 2010 of drug trafficking, to appeal to the Privy Council on order to try and overturn a ruling which saw his compensation for unlawful detention reduced by hundreds of thousands of dollars.

Colin Simmons was permitted by Justices of Appeal Peter Rajkumar, Maria Wilson and Geoffrey Henderson to proceed with his challenge of the Appeal Court reversing aspects of a 2021 High Court award of $980,000 in damages to him for breach of constitutional rights and deprivation of liberty.

Mohammed ruled that the state failed to facilitate Simmons’ right to appeal his conviction while imprisoned, causing him to serve three and a half years behind bars before his conviction was quashed.

In July, the Court of Appeal reduced Simmons’ general damages award to $300,000, pointing to an error by the High Court in calculating the length of his unlawful detention.

Justices of Appeal Mark Mohammed, Peter Rajkumar and Maria Wilson dismissed his claim for pecuniary losses, but left untouched the awards for vindicatory damages and breach of rights. Interest was set at 2.5 per cent from the filing of the claim to judgment.

At the Appeal Court, the Attorney General’s cross-appeal succeeded in reducing the general damages, while Simmons’ appeal for additional compensation was dismissed.

In support of conditional leave, Simmons’s attorneys Farai Hove Masaisai and Chelsea Edwards argued that the case raised significant constitutional questions, including whether damages for unlawful detention should be rigidly quantified at $100,000 per year, regardless of aggravating factors.

They contend that the Court of Appeal’s decision sets a precedent limiting judicial discretion and undermining constitutional protections.

“The Court of Appeal's decision sets a bad precedent for future cases similar to the instant case. There were serious breaches of constitutional rights in this matter, and the award of damages should reflect the severity of those breaches.

“This issue goes beyond the immediate interest of the appellant and raises a serious question of law on the calculation of the quantum of damages for unlawful detention. There are wider implications for the development of the law.

“There is a wide discretion in constitutional cases, and an award should not be limited in the way the Court of Appeal attempted to limit it.

“The decision of the Court of Appeal also rewards the state for its unlawful actions and does not send a message or act as a deterrent. It will undermine public confidence in the justice system. It will be a serious miscarriage of justice if this decision is left to stand,” Simmons’s attorneys argued.