By Barbara Gayle, Staff ReporterA POLICEMAN WHO is involved in a civil suit has been waiting for almost three years to get the written reasons from the Supreme Court so he can pursue his appeal.
Corporal Ceval Griffiths told The Gleaner last week that he has written to several court officials but has not received a response.
A check last Friday at the Supreme Court Registry revealed that the judge had not yet delivered the written reasons.
"It is very frustrating to be waiting for so long to get the reasons," Corporal Griffiths said. He said the case was dismissed in the Supreme Court in May 2002 and the judge had promised to give his reasons in writing. "I have been advised that a date cannot be set for my appeal to be heard until the written reasons are ready," Cpl. Griffiths said.
He had filed a suit in 2001 against the Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP) seeking damages for false imprisonment and malicious prosecution.
The Director of State Proceedings who represented the DPP, filed a summons to have the action struck out on the ground that the suit was frivolous and vexatious and disclosed no reasonable cause of action. Government lawyers argued then that they were not saying the DPP could not be sued but based on the facts there was no reasonable cause of action.
SUIT STRUCK OUT
They described the suit as an abuse of the process of the court. Mr. Justice Wesley James heard the summons in chambers in May 2002 and upheld the submissions made by the government lawyers.
The judge struck out the suit and granted leave for Cpl. Griffiths to appeal against his ruling.
Cpl. Griffiths who was represented by attorney-at-law Bert Samuels, had contended that the statement submitted to the DPP for his ruling did not disclose that a criminal offence was committed. He was stationed at the Linstead Police Station, St. Catherine at the time of the incident .
After he was freed on a no- case submission in the Spanish Town Resident Magistrate's Court on October 5, 2001, he filed a suit in the Supreme Court on December 17, 2001.
Resident Magistrate Kissock Lang freed him of the charge of simple larceny of $8,000. The RM said even if Cpl. Griffiths accepted the money he would be justified in doing so because it would be compensation for the damage which the cows did to his farm.
The DPP had ruled in April 2001 that Cpl. Griffiths be charged with the offence of simple larceny following a complaint from Stafford Royes, a 72-year-old farmer of Riversdale, St. Catherine. Royes alleged that on April 7, 2000, his cows got away and went on to the Knolford Farm, St. Catherine. Cpl. Griffiths approached him and asked him how come the cows were grazing on the grass.
Royes said when he attempted to explain that the cows had just got away, Cpl. Griffiths said he should shut his mouth and demanded $24,000. He told him he did not have that amount of money. Cpl. Griffiths asked him how much he had and when he told him he had only $6,000, Cpl. Griffiths told him to get $8,000.
He said he gave Cpl. Griffiths $8,000 and after that Cpl. Griffiths told him he could take the cows from the property. Royes had admitted in his evidence in court that his cows got away from him and went on to Cpl. Griffiths's farm.
Cpl. Griffiths contended in the suit that he was falsely imprisoned for a day. He said that the prosecution was instituted and brought against him maliciously and without reasonable and probable cause because Royes' statement from which the DPP made his ruling, did not disclose a criminal offence.
