The Tribune

By FARRAH JOHNSON

Tribune Staff Reporter

fjohnson@tribunemedia.net

A FORMER food store manager who was acquitted of rape was recently awarded $767,000 in damages after he sued the government for malicious prosecution and unlawful arrest.

Rod Andrew Bethel earned $75,000 a year as a manager at the former City Market in Harbour Bay Shopping Centre, until he was accused of raping a woman in November 2009.

It was not until 2017, after Justice Gregory Hilton ruled that there was “no sufficient evidence to connect” Bethel to the rape charge, that he was acquitted of the offence.

Four months later, Bethel sued the Commissioner of Police for unlawful arrest and false imprisonment and filed a suit against the Attorney General for malicious prosecution.

On March 19, Justice Diane Stuart granted judgment in favour of Bethel who requested that the interest awarded should be paid from the date that the cause of action arose.

According to court documents, both parties chose to “forego” a hearing and instead offered written submissions in “support of their respective positions”.

In her ruling on interest posted online last week, Justice Stewart noted that Bethel cited the Civil Procedure Act when he argued that the court “almost always exercises its discretion to award interest from any period and for such time as it deems up to judgment”.

“The plaintiff submitted that interest should be calculated on each week’s loss of income from the week he lost his job to the date of the trial, specifically $75,000 per annum or $6,250 per month from November 15, 2009, to April 15, 2017, at the interest rate of 8.25 percent,” she said.

“He also sought the same for loss of wages or alternatively, to add up the loss every six months and allow interest on the total every six months until trial.

“He also contended that the legal fees were vouched as a special damage in the amount of $10,000.

“Therefore, interest on them should run from the date of the filing of the writ of summons to trial.”

Meanwhile, the defendants contended that interest should be awarded at the “statutory rate of 6.25 percent per annum, from the date of judgment to payment”. Justice Stewart said their argument was based on their position that Bethel’s case involved “tort and constitutional relief which should be calculated from the day of the judgment”.

She also said the Crown asserted that the delays in the proceedings were not “entirely their fault.”

In her decision she stated: “Prejudgment interest may be awarded to put parties into the position that they would have been in had the cause of action not arisen.

“It has been established, however, that prejudgment interest should not be awarded in respect of loss of future earnings/loss of earning capacity or estimated repairs which constitute future loss.

“The rationale behind these findings is that because the award of interest is to attempt to place a party in a pre-action position, the loss would not have existed at the date of the cause of action.

“...Interest is therefore awarded on the damages assessed as follows: $697,000 at 2.5 percent annum from the date of the issuance of the writ of summons to the date of judgment; $60,000 at 2.5 percent annum from the date of the issuance writ of summons to the date of judgment. Interest is awarded post judgment on the full judgment debt at the statutory rate of 6.25 percent until payment. I make no further order as to costs.”