Only $5,000 for Bakr
Judge: Your reputation was not ‘injured’ by arrest
By Jensen LaVende (Express).
AFTER being awarded a nominal $5,000 on a claim of false imprisonment yesterday, Jamaat-al-Muslimeen leader Yasin Abu Bakr said he would be appealing the judgment of High Court Judge Frank Seepersad. Speaking with reporters following the judgment, Abu Bakr, who was represented by attorneys Wayne Sturge, Lemuel Murphy and Nigel Allsop, said the judgment was “outrageous”.
Bakr had sued the State for damages claiming false imprisonment, malicious prosecution and assault and battery, saying because of the arrest, his “character and reputation” had been “greatly injured” and was seeking some $4 million in legal fees.
The claim, which names both the Office of the Attorney General an d the Commissioner of Police as defendants, stems from Bakr being charged along with Tahir Ali and Oluyemi Abdul Bassist with possession of a hand grenade, a rifle and 569 rounds of ammunition in November 2005.
Bakr, at the time of the alleged offence, was in police custody in relation to another criminal matter when the weapons were allegedly found.
Police said they found the items in a dormitory at the Mucurapo Road mosque on November 5, 2005. On January 20, 2006, the State conceded there was no case against Bakr and discontinued the three matters against him.
In his 23-page judgment, Seepersad said while it was clear that Bakr was maliciously prosecuted, as a result of the events of 1990 he could not and did not suffer any injury to his fame and reputation.
“The claimant agonistically and arrogantly admitted his orchestration and involvement in the attempted coup,” he said.
Seepersad added that 20 years have elapsed and the society has yet to reconcile the events and that Bakr has remained in the public view.
He said no objective person would believe his reputation was negatively affected given his role in the attempted coup and subsequent criminal charges following the coup, some of which are still pending.
Seepersad ruled that the arresting officer PC Frith was “prompted by improper motives” and he was “preoccupied with the claimant’s history” when he charged Bakr.
On the grounds of wrongful imprisonment, Seepersad said Bakr was already in Remand Yard on charges of sedition when he was arrested and remained there after the ones laid by Frith were dismissed and therefore suffered no loss of liberty. He said Bakr could not prove either the assault or loss of property claims arising out of the charges and dismissed those matters.
Seepersad also ruled that Bakr did not suffer any anxiety by his arrest since at the time when he was informed of the offence he laughed.
“In this case the court has found that the charges did not cause affront to the claimant’s dignity, he suffered no humiliation nor was any damage done to his ‘reputation’ in the eyes of others,” Seepersad said.
The judge added that in the absence of any evidence of damages the court was of the view that Abu Bakr should receive only nominal damages for malicious prosecution of $5,000 and both the State and Abu Bakr would bear the legal costs they accumulated.
Senior Counsel Israel Khan and Larry Lalla represented the State.