The Court of Appeal has increased Wendell Beckles’ general damages to $1 million after finding that an earlier award did not adequately reflect his suffering during nearly eight years of unlawful imprisonment, the Trinidad Express reported. Beckles remained in prison from December 18, 2001, until September 8, 2009, despite a magistrate having discharged him in an arson matter. His freedom was eventually secured through a writ of habeas corpus. The appellate ruling increased his general damages from $800,000 to $1 million. A separate $100,000 award in exemplary damages and the prescribed costs ordered by a Master of the High Court were left unchanged. According to the Express, the judgment was delivered last Friday by a panel comprising Justices of Appeal Prakash Moosai, Gillian Lucky and Eleanor Donaldson-Honeywell. The court criticised the authorities’ failure to ensure Beckles was released following the magistrate’s order. Beckles had been arrested and charged with arson in 1999 and was subsequently committed to stand trial. In 2001, the Director of Public Prosecutions referred the matter back to the Magistrates’ Court for further evidence to be taken. The magistrate discharged him on December 18 that year, but he remained incarcerated for almost eight more years. He later sued the State for false imprisonment. The Office of the Attorney General failed to enter a defence, resulting in a default judgment. Earlier procedural rulings nevertheless allowed the State to rely on the statute of limitations during the assessment of damages. That restricted the period for which Beckles could recover compensation to the final four years of his imprisonment, from September 8, 2005, to September 8, 2009. His claim for lost income was rejected because the supporting evidence was insufficient. On appeal, Beckles argued that the assessment had failed to account properly for his psychological suffering and the aggravating circumstances of his detention. The appellate court agreed that the approach to his mental distress was flawed. The court reasoned that the legal restriction on the compensable period did not mean his suffering could be treated as confined to those four years. The assessment also needed to reflect the psychological toll of his earlier imprisonment. The judges further found that insufficient weight had been given to the fact that Beckles obtained his release only through legal intervention. Those findings led the court to conclude that the original general damages award was too low and should be increased.
