COLIN WILLIAMS J: On Saturday the 15th of December 2018, the Concerned Citizens
Movement,1 CCM, staged a public meeting at Castle Street in Roseau, the Capital of the Commonwealth of Dominica. The meeting was called to address electoral reform. The CCM has been engaged in several activities to advocate for free and fair elections and good governance. The CCM meeting was brought to an end sometime after 4.00 pm when members of the Riot Squad of the Commonwealth of Dominica Police Force, CDPF, intervened.
The police officers ordered the crowd to disperse; tear gas canisters were deployed. The Claimants were participants in the meeting and they are seeking remedies from the State for the steps taken by the police.
This claim arose from the actions of the police, in particular the use of tear gas, to disperse
those gathered at the meeting. The three Claimants, respectively Mr Loftus Durand, Mr
Arturton Martin and Mr James Daisy, complain that they were affected by the tear gas.
The Defendants are the Attorney-General of the Commonwealth of Dominica and the Chief
[also referred to as the Commissioner] of Police. While the Defendants do not dispute certain core facts recited by the Claimants, they denied any liability. The Defendants disagreed that the steps taken by the police were unreasonable or gave rise to any cause of action by the Claimants.
Before the CCM held the public meeting, there was no communication between the
organisers and the police about the meeting.
The Claimants contend that no permission was required to hold a meeting. The Defendants on the other hand are of the view that the failure of the meeting organisers to obtain permission from the Chief of Police to hold the meeting was a breach of the Public
Order Act.
The First Claimant, Mr. Durand, stated that before Saturday the 15th of December 2018, he
engaged in discussions with an individual for permission to hold the meeting on the landing
on the sidewalk outside of the individual’s premises.
The Claimants jointly say:
i. that the conduct of the police was unlawful;
ii. they suffered injury and loss as a consequence of the action of the
police; and
iii. they are entitled to damages as a result of the action by the police.
In the absence of any breach of the Claimants’ rights, they are not
entitled to any relief.
Conclusion
The Claimants have failed to prove that they were entitled to any damages – whether
exemplary aggravated or special – or costs, interest, or any other relief. Their claim has
failed entirely.
The Claimants, Mr. Loftus Durand, Mr. Arthurton Martin, and Mr James Daisy, shall within
twenty-one days each pay one-third of the Respondents’ costs.
https://www.eccourts.org/judgment/loftus-durand-v-attorney-general-of-the-commonwealth-of-dominica