Chandrawtee Ramsingh v The Attorney General of Trinidad and Tobago (Trinidad and Tobago)

Detention after a lawful arrest requires separate justification. The arrestor must show reasonable grounds for the initial suspicion, and the detainer must justify the whole period of continued detention. The question is whether detention remained necessary and reasonable in the circumstances, assessed on a minute-by-minute basis. A blanket policy of detaining suspects until a medical report is obtained is unlawful in principle; the decision must depend on the particular case. Where a suspect is reasonably believed to have committed a serious assault, temporary detention to establish the victim’s injuries may be justified because the information can determine the appropriate charge and the need for further questioning or bail opposition. Once the relevant information is obtained, the suspect must be dealt with promptly.

The appellant was arrested in Trinidad and Tobago on suspicion of seriously assaulting a neighbour. She was detained at a police station for more than five hours while officers awaited medical information about the alleged victim’s condition. She was released without charge when the report showed no serious injury.

Her claim for false imprisonment was dismissed at trial by Shah J on 12 July 2007. The Court of Appeal of the Republic of Trinidad and Tobago dismissed her appeal on 18 December 2009 and gave fuller written reasons on 12 October 2010. Before the Privy Council, the arrest was accepted as lawful. The central issue was whether the subsequent detention pending the medical report was lawful.

Appeal dismissed. The detention was lawful, and the respondent was not liable for false imprisonment or infringement of the appellant’s constitutional rights.

1. Per Lord Clarke, delivering the judgment of the Board, detention is prima facie tortious and infringes section 4(a) of the Constitution of Trinidad and Tobago. The arrestor must justify the arrest. A police officer may arrest where he subjectively suspects that the person has committed an arrestable offence and the suspicion rests on reasonable grounds. Continued detention after arrest requires separate justification by the detainer.

2. The common-law approach is reflected in section 37(2) of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984, although that Act does not apply directly in Trinidad and Tobago. Where there is insufficient evidence to charge, detention must be supported by reasonable grounds for believing that it is necessary to secure or preserve evidence or obtain it by questioning. The whole period must be justified.

3. A blanket policy that suspects will always be detained until a medical report has been obtained would be wrong in principle. The legality of detention depends on all the circumstances. The initial arrest remains relevant context, but a lawful arrest does not automatically make subsequent detention lawful.

4. On the facts, the officers reasonably suspected a serious assault. They could not sensibly determine the appropriate charge or conduct effective questioning until the victim’s injuries were known. Detention pending that information was therefore reasonable and proportionate. The appellant was released immediately when the report arrived, and the police reasonably accepted her request to defer making a statement until the following day.

The Board did not accept all the reasoning of the judge or the Court of Appeal, but upheld their conclusion that the respondent was not liable. Unless submissions on costs were made within 28 days, the appellant was ordered to pay the respondent’s costs before the Board.

• Privy Council: In [2012] UKPC 16, the Board dismissed the appeal and held that the detention pending medical information was lawful.
• Court of Appeal of the Republic of Trinidad and Tobago: The appeal from Shah J was dismissed on 18 December 2009. Fuller written reasons were delivered on 12 October 2010.
• Trial court: Shah J dismissed the false-imprisonment claim on 12 July 2007.