Appeal Court rules businessman maliciously prosecuted, excavator wrongfully seized

THE Court of Appeal has modified a judge’s ruling on the police detention of a businessman’s excavator seized during an illegal quarrying investigation in 2005.

In a unanimous decision, Justices Nolan Bereaux, Ronnie Boodoosingh, and Maria Wilson found that Ganesh Ramdeo was maliciously prosecuted, and the nine-year detention of his machinery was unlawful.

However, the judges disagreed on the compensation owed, with Justice Bereaux writing the deciding opinion while Justice Boodoosingh dissented.

Ramdeo, a businessman in the quarrying industry, rented out his excavator in November 2005 for six days. While Ramdeo was out of the country, police officers seized the excavator and later charged him and three others, for illegal quarrying without a license. The case took seven years before being dismissed by the Sangre Grande Magistrates’ Court in 2013.

Ramdeo tried to get his excavator from the Cumuto army base, where it was stored. When finally allowed to retrieve it in 2014, he discovered it had been vandalised and left inoperable.

Ramdeo sued the State, claiming malicious prosecution, detinue (wrongful detention), conversion, and trespass to goods.

In 2018, a High Court judge ruled in his favour, ordering the state to return the excavator and ordered $2.68 million in compensation for repairs, loss of earnings and exemplary damages.

The Attorney General and the police officer who charged Ramdeo, PC Avinash Singh, appealed, arguing that the damages were too high, while Ramdeo cross-appealed, claiming he deserved more compensation.

The Court of Appeal agreed with the lower court’s ruling that the excavator was unlawfully detained. However, they found that Ramdeo was maliciously prosecuted and varied the compensation amounts to $1.5 million for unlawful detention of the excavator and $60,000 for malicious prosecution.

Bereaux also ruled because the prosecution was malicious, the detention of the excavator was unlawful from the date of the commencement of the prosecution.

The original awards for special damages and loss of earnings were overturned, as the court found Ramdeo did not provide sufficient proof of lost business contracts due to the detention.

Bereaux criticised the state's failure to justify detaining the machinery. He said the police could have used photographic evidence instead. He warned that such detentions exposed taxpayers to substantial financial liability when law enforcement fails to maintain seized equipment.

“The seizure and detention of the excavator in this case is but one representation of an alarming trend where machinery and equipment are being detained unnecessarily by the police.

“The detention of the excavator was not required to prove that the respondent used it in digging, winning or removing materials without a license.

“Quite frankly, it does not matter if the respondent used a shovel as opposed to an excavator. The prosecution must demonstrate that the respondent did dig, win or remove materials without a licence or was concerned in that regard.”

He said, along with photographs, chassis and engine numbers linking ownership could be used in evidence as detaining the equipment did not take the case any further or assist in investigations.

“Instead it opens the taxpayer to substantial damages where the state fails to properly safeguard or maintain the items in its custody, or the charge is found to be improper in the first place. “Being under investigation or being charged with removing materials without a licence does not dis-entitle the subject individual from using the excavator in question for other lawful purposes.

“The charge does not divest the owner of the excavator of the benefit of his property. It is not a case of the excavator not being properly licensed or being stolen.”