Home | Databases | WorldLII | Search | Feedback Tonga Law Reports

To'a v Inu [2009] TongaLawRp 7; [2009] Tonga LR 57 (20 February 2009)

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF TONGA
Supreme Court, Nuku'alofa

CV 837/2004

To'a

v

Inu anors

Shuster J
10 and 11 January 2009; 20 February 2009

Tort – claim against police – unlawful arrest, false imprisonment, and assault – claim not proved and therefore dismissed

On Saturday 16 June 2004 the plaintiff claimed the first and second defendants arrested the plaintiff at about 1600 - 1700 hours near to his neighbour's property. Officers placed the plaintiff into the rear of a police van and then they moved his car without permission; thereby allegedly committing a trespass to his vehicle. The plaintiff claimed he was not informed of the reason for his arrest. He also claimed the arrest was made on private property. He further claimed the period he spent in custody was unreasonable and therefore unlawful and that he lost his self esteem and also his dignity, he also lost the company of his wife and family during his time in custody. The plaintiff claimed the actions of the two police officers, the first and the second defendants, were oppressive, arbitrary and, unconstitutional, and that, the third and the fourth defendants were vicariously liable for their torts. As a result of his treatment during these dates, the plaintiff claimed he was entitled to both aggravated and to exemplary damages. The plaintiff claimed damages for unlawful arrest, imprisonment and assault. The details were as follows: inconvenience and loss of wife's company, $2,000; false imprisonment, $5,000; assault, $1,000; aggravated damages, $500; exemplary damages, $3,000; and costs, and interest at 10% from date of judgment.

Held:

1. The Court found as a fact that the plaintiff was arrested by police officers who were on duty at around about 5pm on Saturday 26th June 2004. The plaintiff was informed of the reason for his arrest and that he knew his arrest was for the alleged theft of Tongan goods and that knowledge was itself sufficient, to make the arrest lawful.

2. A police officer was obliged to care for the property of every man and woman taken into police custody under arrest and every police officer had a duty to observe the law. The plaintiff's wife could not drive so the police officers had a duty to ensure the safety of the plaintiff's car, and all its contents and that duty extended to include looking after the safety of the plaintiff's wife.

3. The Court could not find any evidence that the plaintiff was unlawfully assaulted. Further, there was no evidence led of anything oppressive, arbitrary or unconstitutional by or towards the plaintiff, so the claim for exemplary damages failed.