Murphy, Glenville v Constable Satchell, Constable Morgan & Attorney General

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF JUDICATURE OF JAMAICA

CLAIM NO. C.L. 1998/M 196

BETWEEN GLENVILLE MURPHY CLAIMANT

AND CONSTABLE SATCHEL FIRST DEFENDANT

AND CONSTABLE MORGAN SECOND DEFENDANT

Ahlb THE ATORNEY GENERAL OF JAMAICA THIRD DEFENDANT

LD Dennis Daley Q.C. instructed by Daly Thwaites & Company for the claimant

Lisa White instructed by the Director of State Proceedings for the defendants

October 2, 3, 5 and 9, 2007

FALSE IMPRISONMENT, REASONABLE SUSPICION, SECTION 13 OF THE CONSTABULARY

FORCE ACT

SYKES J. .

1. Stripped of all its excesses, the issue in this case is whether the information given to the

police by Mrs. Venice Lawrence-Beckford as well as the condition they saw the alleged victim in

when they went to arrest Mr. Murphy provided reasonable grounds for the police to suspect

that Glenville Murphy had committed the crime of incest or indeed any other crime.

2. It is agreed that Mr. Murphy was arrested by the police on April 5, 1998, at his home in

Glengoffe in the parish of St. Catherine and taken to the nearby police station where he was

kept until either Monday, April 6 or Tuesday, April 7,1998. Whether he was released on the 6th

or 7th of April is for all practical purposes the sole issue of fact to be resolved in this case. At

this early stage there is a preponderance of evidence showing that Mr. Murphy was released on

Monday, April 6 and not Tuesday, April 7 as alleged by him. There is the testimony of Deputy

Superintendent Duetress Foster Gardner to the effect that after the alleged victim was

examined and the doctor found no evidence of sexual intercourse, she called the Glengoffe

Police Station and directed District Constable Marie Morgan to release Mr. Murphy. District

Constable Morgan testified that she received the call from the Superintendent and thereafter

released Mr. Murphy. The contemporaneous records kept by the police are consistent with a

Monday release. I therefore find that Mr. Murphy was released on Monday, April 6, 1998. This

leaves to be resolved the issue identified at the commencement of this judgment.

3. It is agreed by both sides that the police can arrest on reasonable suspicion. The

defendants rely on section 13 of the Constabulary Force Act which reads in the material parts:

The duties of the Police under this Act shall be to keep watch by day and by

n@h t, to preserve the peace, to detect crime, apprehend or summon before a

Justice, persons found committing any offence or whom they may reasonably