Betaudier v Attorney General of Trinidad and Tobago (Trinidad and Tobago)

Under section 3(4) of the Criminal Law Act, an arresting officer need not identify a precise statutory offence. The officer must, however, genuinely suspect an arrestable offence of a particular kind, with reasonable grounds assessed objectively from the information in the officer’s mind at the time. Briefing information may suffice, even if thin or later incorrect, but it must link the arrested person to the offence suspected. Evidence suggesting firearms offending and possession of cash did not link the appellant to kidnapping. The arrest and consequent detention were unlawful, entitling the appellant to damages for false imprisonment.

The appellant, a Lance Corporal in the Trinidad and Tobago Defence Force, was arrested on suspicion of involvement in kidnapping after police found cash on him and an unlicensed firearm on his passenger. He was detained from 24 to 26 December 2005 and later claimed damages for false imprisonment.

Des Vignes J dismissed the claim. The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, with Mendonca JA dissenting on reasonable cause for arrest. The Privy Council considered whether the arrest was supported by reasonable and probable cause, whether the detention was justified, and whether damages followed if the detention was unlawful.

1. Appeal allowed. The arrest was unlawful because the arresting officer lacked reasonable cause to suspect that the appellant had committed kidnapping. The matter was remitted to the High Court of Justice of Trinidad and Tobago for assessment of damages.
2. Applicable principles. Section 3(4) of the Criminal Law Act requires a subjective suspicion that the person arrested committed an arrestable offence, supported by objectively reasonable grounds. The assessment is confined to the information in the arresting officer’s mind when the power is exercised and must focus on the particular kind of offence suspected. The Board applied the principles stated in Ramsingh v Attorney General of Trinidad & Tobago [2012] UKPC 16 and the approach in O’Hara v Chief Constable of the Royal Ulster Constabulary [1997] AC 286.
3. Specific offence. It is unnecessary for an officer to identify a specific statutory provision or offence with technical precision. The suspicion must nevertheless concern facts capable of supporting an arrestable offence of a particular kind. Suspicion of general unlawful conduct is insufficient. Applying Chapman v Director of Public Prosecutions (1988) 89 Cr App R. 190, the Board held that the officer’s reference to involvement in kidnapping was sufficiently specific.
4. Reasonable cause. The Board could review the concurrent conclusions below because they resulted from an evaluative exercise rather than primary findings of fact; the principle in Devi v Roy [1946] AC 508 did not prevent review. Briefings may provide reasonable grounds, and apparently reliable information need not be checked merely because it is thin or later proves wrong. But the information must link the individual to the offence suspected. The information about soldiers, the interception operation, the passenger’s firearm and the cash could suggest firearms or other unlawful activity, but did not link the appellant to kidnapping. The cash remained insufficient even cumulatively.
5. Consequences. Once the arrest was unlawful, the subsequent detention was unlawful. The appellant was entitled to damages for false imprisonment from arrest until release.

• Privy Council: Allowed the appeal and remitted the matter to the High Court for assessment of damages: [2021] UKPC 7.
• Court of Appeal of the Republic of Trinidad and Tobago: Dismissed the appeal on both principal grounds; Mendonca JA dissented on reasonable cause for arrest.
• High Court of Justice of Trinidad and Tobago: Des Vignes J dismissed the claim for false imprisonment.