The Tribune

By LYNAIRE MUNNINGS

Tribune Staff Reporter

lmunnings@tribunemedia.net

A SUPREME Court judge has found police liable for unlawfully arresting, handcuffing and detaining a licensed taxi driver who was taken into custody near Prince George Wharf for “loitering and soliciting”, even though those were not arrestable offences.

Acting Justice Gail Lockhart Charles, KC, ruled that Quincy Hudson, a taxi driver working near Prince George Wharf and Charlotte Street on June 17, 2023, was unlawfully arrested, assaulted and battered, and falsely imprisoned after officers detained him for about seven hours without charge.

Damages will be assessed at a later hearing.

Mr Hudson was neatly dressed and wearing his taxi credentials on a lanyard around his neck when Police Constable 4674 Turnquest approached him while he was calling out to tourists and offering tours and transport services, an activity the judge described as commonplace for taxi drivers in the area.

A confrontation followed. Mr Hudson was handcuffed and escorted by two officers to the Tourism Police Station, where he was handcuffed to a chair. He was later taken to Central Police Station, booked, and transported to Princess Margaret Hospital after complaining that the handcuffs were too tight and had injured his wrists.

After he was discharged from the hospital, he was returned to Central Police Station and placed in a holding cell. He remained there until about 6.45pm, when, according to him, a senior officer directed his release and apologised.

He was never interviewed and was not charged.

Justice Lockhart Charles said the central issue was whether police had lawful authority to arrest Mr Hudson. She found they did not.

“The reason given for the arrest at the time was loitering and soliciting,” she said. “The Claimant was arrested for the reasons ‘Loitering’ and ‘soliciting’. The Claimant was not informed of any alternative basis for arrest. The Claimant was compliant and did not resist arrest.”

The judge accepted that the officers acted in good faith but said they were mistaken about the law.

“I accept that the officers acted in good faith but under a mistaken understanding of the law,” she said.

The ruling turned heavily on a video recorded by Lafayette Johnson, a fellow taxi driver who witnessed the incident. The judge described the recording as being of “central importance”.

The footage showed Mr Hudson with his hands behind his back, compliant and not resisting. He repeatedly complained that the handcuffs were too tight and that he was in pain. Onlookers questioned why he needed to be handcuffed.

At the start of the recording, Mr Hudson said he had not been told why he was being arrested.

“I’m telling you he hasn’t informed me of anything,” he said.

PC Turnquest then announced: “He is arrested for loitering and soliciting.”

Mr Hudson repeated: “Loitering and soliciting.”

The detention record made at or shortly after the arrest also listed the reason for arrest as “loitering soliciting”.

The original defence filed by the state said PC Turnquest approached Mr Hudson to caution and arrest him for soliciting. However, after the video was disclosed, the amended defence added disorderly conduct, resisting arrest and breach of the peace as grounds for the arrest.

Justice Lockhart Charles rejected that shift.

“The late amendment of the Defence to introduce disorderly conduct and resisting arrest, after disclosure of Exhibit LJ-1, reinforces the conclusion that those were not the true grounds at the time of the arrest, nor were they the grounds that were communicated to the Claimant,” she said.

She said the contemporaneous record and video evidence consistently pointed to “loitering and soliciting” as the stated basis for arrest.

The judge said police have significant powers, including the power to immediately deprive a person of liberty, but those powers are not unlimited.

“The police are entrusted with great powers, including the power to instantly deprive a citizen of his or her liberty,” she said. “Those powers are not, however, unlimited and must be exercised lawfully.”

She said a person arrested without a warrant must ordinarily be told the true reason for the arrest. A false reason, or a non-arrestable reason, can make an arrest unlawful.

She found that Mr Hudson was never given a valid ground for arrest without a warrant.

“For those reasons I find that the arrest was unlawful,” she said.

The judge also found the handcuffing amounted to battery. She said the video showed Mr Hudson was compliant, did not try to flee and was not violent or aggressive.

The handcuffs were applied so tightly that he cried out in pain, and both officers struggled to loosen them. The evidence also showed PC Turnquest did not have his handcuff key with him.

“An officer who applies handcuffs should be in a position to remove them if needed,” the judge said.

She found the defendants liable for assault and battery, saying there was no lawful basis to use force once the arrest itself was unlawful.

She also found the police liable for false imprisonment because Mr Hudson was deprived of his liberty for about seven hours and the defendants failed to justify the detention as lawful.

Christina Galanos and Ms Kristina Saunders appeared for Mr Hudson. Perry McHardy and Randolph Dames appeared for the defendants.