Easton v The Attorney General

• Jurisdiction: Guyana
• Judge: Ramson, J.A.
• Judgment Date: 07 May 2008
• Neutral Citation: GY 2008 CA 5
• Docket Number: Civil Appeal No. 17 of 2004
• Court: Court of Appeal (Guyana)
• Date: 07 May 2008

Court of Appeal

Ramson, J.A.; Roy, J.A.; Cummings-Edwards, J.A.

Civil Appeal No. 17 of 2004

Easton

and

The Attorney General

Appearances:

Mr. B. Gibson with Mr. R. Satram and Mr. P. Henry for the appellant.

Mr. D. Singh, SC and Attorney General with Mr. N. Harnanan for the respondent.

Damages - Quantum of Damages — Whether award of damages unfair or inadequate — Duty to mitigate — Disgraceful conduct — Appeal dismissed.

Ramson, J.A.

1 The appellant, George Easton, was a Constable of twelve (12) years 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 s. 35 of the Police Act, CAP. 16:01. In a ruling by this Court on the 17 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.

2 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 he 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 e. Attorney General and Commissioner of Police (Civ. App. # 66 of 2000); Ito d Barker et al v. Eric Douglas (Civ. App. # 59 of 1984); E. Thomas v. 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.

3 Public Law Jurisprudence did not therefore enter into the equation. Hence the Privy Council decision of Mc Laughlin v. 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 v. 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.

4 This court therefore reviewed the question which underlay the quantum of damages to be awarded i.e. how long...