IN WHAT may be the largest award in TT’s judicial history, the nine men acquitted of the murder of businesswoman Vindra Naipaul-Coolman in 2016, will each receive $2.1 million in damages for malicious prosecution, which after additional costs amounts to $20 million.
In total, High Court Master Martha Alexander on Monday awarded a total of $19,168,917.56, representing the award for malicious prosecution and exemplary damages; costs amounting to $200,917.56; and the cost for an expert witness of $68,000.
Interest will be added to the damages for each man, at a rate of 2.5 per cent, from May 29, 2020, to January 30 this year, which will push the final figure up.
The nine – Shervon Peters, Devon Peters, Anthony Gloster, Joel Fraser, Ronald Armstrong, Keida Garcia, Jameel Garcia, Marlon Trimmingham and Antonio Charles - were among ten men who went on trial in 2016 for Naipaul-Coolman’s murder.
Eight were acquitted and one released after a no-case submission was upheld by the trial judge.
Two men – Earl "Bobo" Trimmingham and Lyndon "Iron" James – were ordered to be re-tried for Naipaul-Coolman's gruesome murder, while Allan "Scanny" Martin, who was also on trial, was killed in 2016 during a failed prison break from the Frederick Street prison in Port of Spain.
In October 2021, Gloster was killed in a drive-by shooting in Diego Martin.
STATE FAILS TO DEFEND
The nine filed a malicious prosecution claim in May 2020 which was not defended by the State, despite having entered an appearance. The nine were represented by Anand Ramlogan, SC, Renuka Rambhajan, Ganesh Saroop and Natasha Bisram.
In July 2021, Justice Joan Charles entered judgment in their favour and sent the matter to a master for assessment.
At the assessment stage, attorneys for the nine presented testimony from an expert witness – clinical psychologist Isolde Ali Ghent-Garcia, on the effect nine years of incarceration had on them.
“Persons plucked out of society and thrown into a maelstrom where they are incarcerated for nine years on questionable evidence, should not be expected to adjust, survive or thrive in abysmal prison conditions such as to justify 'tapering off' compensatory awards,” Master Alexander said in her ruling.
In addition to Ghent-Garcia’s evidence, the nine also spoke of “abysmal prison conditions.”
As she referred to a decision by Justice Carol Gobin on the issue of cruel and inhumane conditions in prison, Alexander said, “unfortunately, this might no longer shock the conscience of this nation.”
“These prison experiences suffered by the present claimants were deplorable, mentally grating, sub-human conditions. Such shocking conditions applied across the prison system while they were incarcerated at the various prison institutions and police stations,” she added.
Conditions included overcrowding, poor ventilation, poor lighting, poor diet, inhumane prison transport, lack of airing, poor sleeping conditions, lack of medical attention and unsanitary cell conditions, including the use of slop pails, or none at all.
“They had to defecate in the presence of cell mates and had nothing to wipe or wash themselves with afterwards nor could they flush faeces immediately, as officers had this done at the 6 am and 6 pm change of shifts.
"They also had to endure exposure to pests/vermin and diseases, violence, medical neglect and deprivation of religious practice as well as harassment.”
On the first day of Ramadan, one of the men was also told the prison was “not a mosque,” and an attempt was made to strip him of his traditional Muslim attire.
Alexander detailed some of the treatment of the men, in her judgment, “mainly for the graphic horror captured in their words…”
SALT, NOT SUGAR USED IN MAUBY
The nine spoke of seeing prison officers raping inmates, which left them “affected by the brutality and callousness of what unfolded.” One of the men said he wanted to take his own life after what he saw.
They also spoke of "torture and punishment by use of food,” such as being being given excessive salt instead of sugar in their food and drink.
“Mauby is a bitter drink that requires excessive sugar to be palatable so it was unimaginable that officers would lace it with excessive salt, to feed to prisoners, as a form of punishment,” Alexander said.
Three years after they were incarcerated while awaiting trial, one of the men was diagnosed with kidney disease and was treated with Panadol rather than being given proper treatment.
They also spoke of sleeping on "beds" made out of newspaper spread out on the ground.
Some of them developed scabies and rashes, the evidence showed, and one claimed his hand was chopped off by people looking to collect a bounty which was put on him for Naipaul-Coolman’s murder, before he was arrested. His hand was surgically re-attached at hospital.
Ghent-Garcia said the men suffered from post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD), depression, psychosis and anxiety because of their nine-year remanded incarceration.
Alexander said Ghent-Garcia's testimony was instrumental in her reaching a conclusion on damages.
Ghent-Garcia also recommended future medical treatment for the men as PTSD was a lifetime condition they would suffer.
Alexander said because of the evidence from the psychologist, she could not accept or agree with the State’s submission on collusion, because of the similarity of diagnosis. The Master said she was “stunned by this attack on the expert.”
She added, "They all had to endure nine or seven years of incarceration in sub-humane prison conditions. They all experienced lengthy prosecution based on questionable and unreliable evidence from the defendant’s witnesses that was, ultimately, adjudged to be malicious prosecution.”
In support of their claim, the men also testified about the loss of their reputations, livelihoods and family lives which carried on even after they were acquitted as many were unable to find jobs or lost the ones they had before they were charged.
“They returned to family lives that were destroyed, as wives had moved on with their lives and their children had grown apart from them. When the prosecution ended, they returned to a society with reputations of murderers, kidnappers and rapists.
“No amount of money could compensate for or restore destroyed reputations, but money is this court’s only recourse to do justice,” Alexander said.
She said once reputations were destroyed, the men had to learn to live with the impact of their prosecution.
She described the treatment of the men in prison as being an “extra-judicial sentence” given while on remand “without the colour of a legal conviction” and referred to the “shredding” of their reputation.
During the assessment hearing, the State was represented by Karen Reid Ballantyne and Amrita Ramsook.