Breaking news-Court rules that Daniel “Danny” Lugay was falsely imprisoned and unlawfully detained by the police

Brief facts

The Claimant, Mr Daniel Lugay, is alleging that he was assaulted and battered, wrongfully arrested, and falsely imprisoned or kidnapped by police officers of the Commonwealth of Dominica Police Force, CDPF, on the 15th of August 2020. He is seeking remedies from the State, in particular damages for what he believes are torts committed by agents of the State. At the time of the incident on the 15th of August 2020, Mr Lugay (the Claimant) was the elected Representative for the Roseau North constituency in the Parliament of the Commonwealth of Dominica. He was a member of the opposition United Workers Party, UWP.

The Claimant was arrested outside of the Prime Minister’s residence at Morne Daniel in the
early evening of Saturday, the 15th of August 2020, by then Inspector of Police, Mr Michael
Sebastien, (‘the Second Defendant’). Mr Sebastien, who is now an Assistant Superintendent of Police, at all material times has been the Supervisor of the Protective Services Unit, PSU, Special Branch Department, SB, of the CDPF. The PSU/SB of the CDPF provides security for the Head of State (the President) and Head of Government (the Prime Minister) and their respective families.

When the Second Defendant arrested the Claimant on the 15th of August 2020, he took the Claimant to his (the Second Defendant’s) personal vehicle. The Claimant was then placed in the custody of Mr Martin Anatol, (‘the Third Defendant’), who at the time was a Corporal of Police in the CDPF and attached to the PSU/SB. The Third Defendant then transported the Claimant to the Police Headquarters in Roseau. Another police officer from the PSU/SB was present during that journey to Roseau.

The Claimant, in his Statement of Claim filed on the 12th of February 2021, alleges that he was assaulted and battered,2 falsely imprisoned,3 and kidnapped4 by the Second and Third
Defendants. The Claimant alleges that the Second and Third Defendants “wrongfully and
without a genuine and honest suspicion of the Claimant[’s] involvement in any offence caused his false imprisonment, assault and battery and kidnapping.

The Claimant said that as a result of the actions of the Second and Third Defendants, he is
entitled to damages for any torts, as well as aggravated damages, exemplary damages,
interest, and costs.

The Second and Third Defendants were said to be at all times performing duties in their
capacity as members of the CDPF.7 The Attorney General (‘the First Defendant’) is joined
as a party in this suit under the State Proceedings Act.

The Defendants deny the Claimant’s allegations and deny that they are liable to the
Claimant.

According to the Judge, what originally was “a lawful arrest became false imprisonment and the Second Defendant neglected and failed to immediately release the Claimant, but rather supervised the Claimant’s wrongful detention.”

What remedies are available to the Claimant if his rights were violated?

The claimant was seeking damages for various torts as well as aggravated damages and
exemplary damages.

The Claimant experienced a mild infringement of his rights when the police failed to release
him from custody promptly. It was only a very brief period during which the Claimant
was falsely imprisoned, that is, the time that elapsed following the Second Defendant’s return to Police Headquarters from Morne Daniel and the Claimant’s eventual departure from Police Headquarters in the company of his lawyer. The period of unlawful imprisonment included the time that the Claimant was in the interview room at the CID, following the return of the Second Defendant from the Prime Minister’s residence. The Claimant suffered no physical injury. Apart from the tort of unlawful imprisonment, what
the Claimant demonstrated was that he experienced hurt feelings. A small, nominal sum ought to be awarded to the Claimant for the tort of unlawful imprisonment committed by the Defendants.

The Order

The Claimant was falsely imprisoned when he was unreasonably and unlawfully detained
beyond what was necessary, and even after the Second Defendant knew that the Claimant
was not the person of interest who was involved in harassing, obstructing, and verbally
abusing the Prime Minister.

In the circumstances, the First Defendant shall:

Pay to the Claimant the sum of $5,500.00 in damages. Pay the sum of $5,000.00 in costs, being the figure agreed to before the commencement of this matter.