– Appellate Court begs to differ; awards rank damages
THE COMMISSIONER of Police removed Constable George Easton from office in 2006, after the constable had admitted to a departmental charge that he had taken a false document to the U.S. Embassy. But the Guyana Appellate Court found that Constable Easton was unlawfully discharged, and consequently awarded him damages.
Justice of Appeal C.R. Ramson, SC, delivered the judgment after a 3-day hearing by the Guyana Court of Appeal, which was constituted by the Honourable Justices C.R. Ramson, B.S. Roy and Yonette Cummings-Edwards.
Attorney-at-Law Mr. B. Gibson, with lawyers Messrs. R. Satram and P. Henry, appeared for the appellant.
The Honourable D. Singh, S.C., Attorney General,in association with Mr. N. Harnanan, represented the respondent.
Delivering the Judgment of the Court, Justice of Appeal Ramson said:-
“The appellant, George Easton, was a constable of twelve (12) years (standing) when he was removed from the Guyana Police Force after he pleaded guilty to a departmental charge of taking a document to the U.S. Embassy, knowing the same to be false.
“The Commissioner of Police discharged the appellant under Section 35 of the Police Act, Chapter 16:01.
“In a ruling by this court on the 17th day of October 2001, Chang J.A, as he then was, found that the purported discharge by the Commissioner of Police was inconsistent with the de facto finding of Justice O. Legall, who determined that the appellant was removed from the Force for fault.
“His discharge was therefore unlawful, and the Court of Appeal remitted the matter to the High Court for damages therefor to be quantified. Justice R. Persaud ruled that (the appellant) was entitled to nine (9) months’ salary, less income tax and allowances, calculated as at the date of the purported discharge.
“On appeal, this court considered a number of cases, including Wesley Mc Donald vs. Attorney General and Commissioner of Police (Civ. App.# 66 of 2000); Lloyd  Barker, et al vs. Eric Douglas (Civ. App. # 59 of  1984); E. Thomas  vs. Attorney General of Trinidad and Tobago (1981) 31 W.I.R. 375; and out of deference for comity and lack of any perceptive jurisprudential learning to the contrary, determined that this appeal must  be decided on principles relating to master and servant.
“Public Law jurisprudence did not, therefore, enter into the equation; hence the Privy Council decision of Mc Caughlin vs. H.E., the Governor of the  Cayman Islands  (P.C. # 83 of 2006), on which the appellant  relied, has no relevance. More pertinent to the issue raised is Mohamed Yasseen vs. Attorney General of Guyana (2008) CCJ 3 (AJ), not cited by either party in their presentations.
“However, as the learned trial judge observed, the Court of Appeal had limited his remit to the quantum of damages.
“This court, therefore, reviewed the question which underlay the quantum of damages to be awarded, i.e., how long would it take for the ex-constable to obtain comparable employment with such security of tenure?
“Was an award of nine (9) months’ pay and allowances, calculated as at the date of removal from the Force, inherently unfair or inadequate in the circumstances?
(See Orwin Williams vs. Attorney General (Civ. App. # 67 of 2000).
“An analysis of the decided cases demonstrates that awards have no magical formula, and, generally speaking, unless the trial judge is shown to have acted unreasonably and/or in disregard of the decided cases, this court ought not to interfere and substitute a greater or lesser sum.
“From all appearances, the trial judge did not advert his mind to this process by considering some of the relevant authorities, (Wesley McDonald, Clement Johnson, Eric Douglas) and therefore cannot be said to have acted whimsically, arbitrarily, or perfunctorily.
“Furthermore, the appellant was under a duty to mitigate his loss (see Orwin Williams (SUPRA) and Clement Johnson vs. Attorney General (Civ. App. # 21 of 1992).
“Before concluding this judgment, we would like to state that the appellant should consider himself fortunate that Glenn vs. Keale University (1971) WLR 487 and Ward vs. Bradford Corp. (1971) 70 LGR 27 were not cited to the Court of Appeal and the learned trial judge.
“Denning MR in Hoffman La Roche vs. Trade Secretary (1975) AC 295, at p. 320 posited:
“If his conduct has been disgraceful and he has, in fact,
Suffered no injustice, he may be refused relief.
“Tendering a forged letter to the U.S. Embassy was, at a minimum, disgraceful conduct on the part of a policeman.
“Under Section 8 of the Pensions Act, a dismissal for fault disqualifies a public           officer from being eligible for such benefits
“On the issue of superannuation benefits, as contended for by the appellant, this court is satisfied that the  Court of Appeal had adequately laid to rest this reward of relief in the forerunner to this appeal, and the matter is now  per rem judicatam: DSV Silo etc. vs. Owners of the Sennar (H/L) (1985) 2 ALL ER 104.”
Justice of Appeal Ramson  added, “In the circumstances, the appeal is dismissed subject to the payment of interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of filing of the writ to the date of the award of damages by the trial judge, and thereafter, at the rate of 4% per annum to the time of payment.”
Costs were awarded to the respondent in the sum of $50,000.