By LYNAIRE MUNNINGS

Tribune Staff Reporter

lmunnings@tribunemedia.net

A SUPREME Court Registrar has rebuked police officers who arrested and detained a married couple for more than 31 hours over what he found was nothing more than a civil rental dispute.

Acting Registrar Renaldo Toote delivered the criticism in a detailed judgment awarding damages to Jinnah and Reshenda Forde, who were unlawfully arrested, falsely imprisoned, assaulted and subjected to degrading treatment after officers removed them from their home on March 25, 2014. They were awarded a total of $131,000 in damages and compensation and costs of $60,000.

The Fordes had signed a tenancy agreement on March 21, 2014, with a prospective tenant identified as SB, who paid first and last month’s rent and a security deposit totalling $1,650. Within days, a dispute developed and the Fordes told SB they no longer wished to proceed with the rental.

SB claimed they refused to return the money and launched both a civil action in the Magistrate’s Court and a criminal complaint with the police. Registrar Toote found the matter was “patently civil in nature”, noting the tenant had already turned to the civil courts.

Despite this, officers in an unmarked vehicle arrived at the Fordes’ home at about 9.45am on 25 March. Arresting officer DC 3025 Deon Barr said he carried out what he called a “constructive arrest”, forcing the couple to dress and accompany officers to the Grove Police Station.

Their young child was made to travel with them and was left alone in a patrol car until a family member arrived. The Fordes were handcuffed, booked, and taken to the Central Detective Unit. Their detention records listed the offence as “Stealing by Reason of Service”.

Registrar Toote said there was no legal basis for such a charge. After reviewing the Penal Code, he said it was “difficult to determine” how a landlord’s reliance on a contractual forfeiture clause could constitute stealing by reason of service, which applies only to employees or fiduciaries and requires dishonesty. A genuine belief in a contractual right, he noted, would negate criminal intent.

The couple was placed in separate cells for hours. Mrs Forde’s cell faced male cells, exposing her to male detainees relieving themselves on open toilets and displaying their private parts. A defence witness confirmed the layout. Registrar Toote described the conditions as an “affront to her self-dignity” and said the exposure amounted to degrading and humiliating treatment.

The Fordes remained in custody for more than 31 hours. They said they were not told why they were detained until the second day, when detectives told them they would only be released if they returned the tenant’s money. Mrs Forde, a veteran banker, said they felt compelled to refund the funds because of the threat of prosecution and the conditions they were held in.

Registrar Toote ruled that officers acted without reasonable suspicion of any criminal offence and relied solely on SB’s allegations. He said the officers appeared to have adopted an “arrest first then investigate later” approach and that the manner of arrest — entering the home, forcing the couple out, involving their young child — heightened the wrongdoing. He said that “the police are not debt collectors” and found that officers had used their powers “as instruments of intimidation or oppression”.

He accepted the Fordes’ account in full and found they were unlawfully detained and subjected to degrading treatment. Although the child was exposed to the arrest, the Registrar found his involvement incidental and not a separate tort, noting that police eventually ensured a family member collected him — though he said the child should never have been placed in that situation.

The Court awarded Mrs Forde $35,000 in general damages for wrongful arrest and false imprisonment and Mr Forde $32,000. Both received $5,000 in assault and battery damages for being handcuffed and physically compelled during their unlawful detention.

Each was awarded $10,000 in aggravated damages for the officers' high-handed conduct, and $15,000 in exemplary damages to punish and deter police misconduct. They also received $7,000 each in vindicatory damages to reflect the constitutional breach, particularly the degrading conditions endured by Mrs Forde.

Mrs Forde’s total damages amount to $67,000; Mr Forde’s to $64,000. No damages were awarded to the minor child. Compensatory damages attract interest at three percent from the date of the Writ until judgment, and 6.25 percent thereafter. The Court ordered the defendants to pay the Fordes’ costs, fixed at $60,000.

Registrar Toote concluded that officers either misunderstood the basic difference between civil and criminal matters or deliberately misused their authority, saying the conduct “represents a serious threat to the rule of law”.