Unless the Attorney General takes the matter to the Privy Council, three Appeal Court judges yesterday cleared the way for nine men freed of the murder of businesswoman Vindra Naipaul-Coolman to collect a $20 million payout.
Justices of Appeal Nolan Bereaux, Mark Mohammed and Ronnie Boodoosingh found that the nine men freed of murdering Naipaul-Coolman—Shervon and Devon Peters, Anthony Gloster, Joel Fraser, Ronald Armstrong, Keida and Jameel Garcia, Marlon Trimmingham and Antonio Charles - should be awarded the already agreed-upon sum, which would be the largest payout by the state in a lawsuit.
On January 30, 2023, High Court Master Martha Alexander assessed the damages for the nine men and found that each should be given $2.1 million in a default judgment. The amount did not include legal costs.
On January 8, 2021, Justice Joan Charles granted the default judgment, with the assessment beginning on November 4, 2022. On December 6, 2023, Charles set aside her earlier default judgment and found that the men’s original malicious prosecution claim was not properly served on the Attorney General’s Office as required under the State Liability and Proceedings Act.
In May 2016, the nine men were freed of murder and later sued the state for malicious prosecution. Gloster was, however, killed in a drive-by shooting in 2021.
The State appealed the award following public outcry over the amount to be paid. It was argued that the default judgment was only given because the case file went missing, prompting then-attorney general Reginald Armour to launch an investigation led by retired Justice Stanley John.
Within a month, John found that the case file was handed over to the acting solicitor general. Rolston Nelson, SC, was also retained by the AG to advise on how to get the default judgment set aside.
In their judgment yesterday, the judges found that the state was fully aware of the matter leading up to the judgment.
“Additionally, counsel appearing for the Attorney General fully participated (so far as the rules allowed) in the assessment. No explanation setting out the reasons why no action was taken to set aside the judgment was provided by the Attorney General. The application only came after harsh public criticism of the failure to defend the claim.
“In my judgment, the respondent did not act as soon as reasonably practicable after he found out that the judgment had been entered against him. The delay in this case has been unexplained and all the while, the damages assessment proceeded with the full participation of the State,” Justice Bereaux said on behalf of the panel in a written ruling on the matter.
The judges added that throughout the initial matter, attorneys Anand Ramlogan, SC, Ganesh Saroop and Natasha Bisram went above and beyond the call of duty to ensure the state was informed.
“The attorneys for the appellants did what was required of them and in some instances went beyond what was required in liaising with attorneys-at-law from the Chief State Solicitor’s and Solicitor General’s department in bringing to their attention the progress of the case.” Guardian Media called and messaged Attorney General John Jeremie on whether the matter will be appealed, but up to press time there was no response.
The state was represented by Rolston Nelson, SC, Ria Mohammed-Davidson and Elena Araujo.
In a media release following the ruling, Ramlogan said, “We welcome the landmark judgment of the Court of Appeal in this historic matter which has been the subject of much colourful political and social commentary. The rule of law has prevailed because independent judicial analysis of the law and facts was not swayed by the public political posturing.”
