THE Supreme Court has awarded $26,500 to a man police considered a gang leader after a judge found he was wrongfully arrested and detained in 2015 and 2016.
Chief Justice Ian Winder has awarded Daran Neely $7,500 as basic compensatory damages for his arrest and detention in December 2015; $14,000 as basic compensatory damages for his arrest and detention in February 2016; and $5k as aggravated damages to reflect the fact that his February 2016 arrest was unexplained.
National Security Minister Wayne Munroe represented Mr Neely in the case before the 2021 general election.
According to CJ Winder, the plaintiff is allegedly gang-affiliated and known to the police. He had been charged with criminal offences before. In 2014, a criminal charge led to him being released on bail and electronically monitored.
Mr Neely alleged that he was arrested at his residence on December 23, 2015, taken to the South Beach Police Station and held in police custody without charge until January 1, 2016.
He alleged that he was arrested at his residence around February 3, 2016, again taken to the South Beach Police Station and held in custody without charge until February 8, 2016.
He argued that his arrests were unjustified and that police officers threatened his life and damaged his property.
Police officers claimed during the trial that the defendant was held in custody only until December 26, 2015 and February 8, 2016.
The chief justice said the defendant did not provide discovery, which could have disclosed the records relating to Mr Neely’s arrest and detention.
The lawyer for the police said this happened because of difficulty getting information from the police concerning events in February 2016.
“That explanation warrants little sympathy, however, given the lengthy lead-up to trial,” wrote the chief justice.
Mr Neely said he was at home when he heard loud noises that appeared to be banging on his front gate and police officers shouting ‘open the f——— gate’.
“The police officers attempted to breach his gate with a maul,” the chief justice wrote. “In so doing, they damaged the outside lock on the gate and dented it.”
Mr Neely said he did not have evidence of the alleged damage to his gate because police took his security cameras.
After entering the house, officers, he alleged, took photos of the plaintiff and everyone and questioned them on their identities and why they were on the property.
Mr Neely said he was booked at the South Beach Police Station and later taken to the Grove Police Station. He said he was never questioned or interviewed. He said he slept on the concrete floor because there was no bedding.
He provided fewer details about his February 2016 arrest.
“In cross-examination,” according to Chief Justice Winder, “the plaintiff said that he had been ‘continuously harassed’ by the police since being released on bail in 2014 but he had only brought proceedings in relation to his arrest and detention in December 2015 and February 2016 as he ‘thought it was time’ after the incidents.”
“The plaintiff said in his witness statement that Anthony Ferguson and other police officers made numerous threats on his life and that, while at his house, police officers told him ‘I will soon die; they will kill me’”.
Meanwhile, officers who testified during the case contradicted Mr Neely’s claims about what happened.
One officer, Inspector Hanna, said he was part of a unit that received instructions from “Superintendent Fernander” to go to the plaintiff’s residence and place him in custody on suspicion of armed robbery and possession of an illegal firearm.
He testified that when he arrived at Mr Neely’s residence, he noticed that the “heavily fortified gate” was open, and the plaintiff was present with a blanket awaiting his arrest.
“Inspector Hanna,” wrote the chief justice, “did not accept that the police had the plaintiff ‘marked’ as the leader of the ‘Dirty South Gang,’ nor did he agree with counsel for the plaintiff’s suggestion that the police would treat the plaintiff differently (ie unfairly) if they believed he was a member of a street gang.”
In providing his findings of fact, CJ Winder said he generally found the defendant’s witnesses more credible than the plaintiff’s.
He said the plaintiff and his mother “appeared to have strong negative feelings towards the police and were not reliable witnesses on all matters”. He rejected Mr Neely’s assertion that police damaged his gate by beating on it with a maul or sledgehammer during the first arrest.
CJ Winder concluded that Mr Neely was not mistreated in custody but slept on the concrete floor and was not allowed to spend time with his family on Christmas day.
As for the second arrest, he said the plaintiff was arrested on suspicion that he committed an offence.
“However,” he wrote, “it is not possible to say much more on the limited evidence that is now before the court. I am not prepared to find that the plaintiff’s arrest was arbitrary or capricious. However, equally, it is not possible for me to say what precisely was in the mind of the arresting officer when the plaintiff was arrested on February 3, 2016.
“I accept the plaintiff’s uncontroverted evidence that he was kept in custody in a holding cell and that he was released without charge.”
Ultimately, the judge concluded the plaintiff’s arrests were unlawful. He noted that the officers could not explain the crimes the plaintiff was suspected of committing.
Commenting has been disabled for this item.