Seymour v Minister of Safety and Security (26508/01) [2005] ZAGPHC 18; 2006 (5) SA 495 (W); [2005] 2 All SA 296 (W) (16 February 2005)

IN THE HIGH COURT OFSOUTH AFRICA(WitwatersrandLocal Division)Case No: 26508/2001In the matter between:Dennis SEYMOUR

PlaintiffandThe Minister of Safety and Security

Defendant_______________JUDGMENTWILLIS J.[1]This is a claim for general damages consequent upon an unlawful arrest and related matters.[2]The plaintiffis a 66-year old man.He grew up in impoverished circumstances inEast Londonas a so-called “coloured person”.He proudly describes himself now as a “Black South African”.Hishighest level of formal educationisStandard 10. For many years he was a trades union official. He is today,the managing director of a public company and chairman of the Ennersdale Farmers’ Co-operativeAssociation. In both these capacities,he was actively involved in the Simunye Dairy Project which received assistance from, among others,the Danish International Development Agency (DANIDA) and the Land Bank.The Simunye Dairy Project has, in the past,received high praise in the press, from the Royal Danish Embassy and the South African Government.The project received public commendation from the provincial and national ministries of agriculture in particular.[3]It is common cause that the plaintiffwas arrested on 29thDecember 2000,without a warrant( on chargesfor which a warrant for his arrest would have been required) by one Inspector Smith,who, at the time, was acting within the course and scope of his employment with the South African Police Services. Inspector Smith has since been discharged from service. It is not

clear precisely on what charges the plaintiff was arrested. When he was detained initially,he was told it was for “intimidation”,but the next day,when was taken to the Johannesburg Central Police Station, he was told it wasfor fraud. Inspector Smith came to the business premises of the plaintiff late on the afternoon of29thDecember2000,and commanded the plaintiff to accompany him to the Ennersdale Police station,where he informed him he was under arrest. Attempts by the plaintiff’s family to arrange for him to be released on bail were thwarted by Inspector Smith. The plaintiff’s family arranged for him to be visited by the family doctor, Dr Vallabh, the next day. Dr Vallabh examined the plaintiffduring the morningand discovered that he was suffering from angina, an irregular heartbeat, high blood pressure and a high pulse rate. Dr Vallabh informed the police that there were serious risks associated with the health of the plaintiff and that he should immediately be sent to the Rand Clinic for further tests, observations and treatment.Although the plaintiff had previously suffered from hypertension, Dr Vallabh had no doubt that the plaintiff’s medical condition,on that day,was directly attributable to the stress which the plaintiff had been experiencing as a result of his detention.WhenDr Vallabh was informed by the plaintiff’s family late that afternoon that he had still notbeen

taken to Rand Clinic, Dr Vallabhagain prevailed on the police to take him to hospital as a matter or urgency. The police relented,but took him to the hospitalonly after he had been taken to the Johannesburg Central Police Station. He was put in the back of a van and transported, according to various witnesses,at an unnecessarily high speed and in extreme discomfort. The hospital records confirm the seriousness of Dr Vallabh’s diagnosis. The plaintiff was kept under arrest at the Rand Clinic and was brought to court on3rdJanuary, 2001. All charges were withdrawn against him and no further charges have since been laid. The plaintiff has a completely clean criminal record.[4]Subsequent to the plaintiff’s release, Superintendent Smith arrived uninvited at a meeting of the Simunye Diary,at which were present not only the plaintiff but also the Simunye Diary’s auditor,a representative of the Danish International Development Agency(DANIDA), the Land Bankand various other persons. Superintendent Smith was asked by the plaintiff to leave the meeting. He obliged,but before he did so, hesaid to the plaintiff,in the presence oftheothers,that he would still “get” the plaintiff “for fraud and misappropriation of funds”. Since that date, theSimunye DairyProjecthas received no further financial assistance from DANIDA or the Land Bank.[5]Quite whySuperintendent Smithacted as he did is not

clear.It does seemthat some members of Ennersdale Farmers’ Co-operative Association were unhappy that, for reasons beyond the control of the plaintiff, theycould not participate in the Simunye Dairy Project and complained to the police.[6]The evidence of the plaintiff, his family, Dr Vallabh, whohas been his medical doctor bothbeforeand afterthe incidents in question, and Dr Shosana Saffer,a psychiatrist who examined him afterwards, all indicate that the plaintiff sufferred extreme stress during his unlawful arrest and detention as well asafterwards as a result thereof. His reputation has suffered and his dignityhas beenmost sorely infringed.The plaintiff had travelled, mainly by dint of hard work, from humble beginnings to being a man of considerable standing in the community.Theplaintiff isaproud man and a devout Christian. He is the patriarch of a large family of children and grandchildren. Every year as the Old Year passed and the New Year was ushered in, the plaintiff and his family would experience the event with prayers of thanks for things past and prayers of hope and faith for things new. It hurt both the plaintiff and his family deeply that he was detainedin this manner and in these circumstancesat the height of the festive season.For reasons which are not clear the relationship between the plaintiff and his wife deteriorated as a result of these incidents, according

to Dr Vallabh. The plaintiff’s wife took it very badly. She has since died.[7]The plaintiff has claimed R10 million as general damages for “pain and suffering, emotional shock, deprivation of liberty, post-traumatic syndrome, invasion of privacy, intimidation andcontumelia”.[8]Essentially, all that is in issue is the question ofquantum. MrStockwell, who appears for the plaintiff, agreed that it would be best that I make a single award for “general damages” rather than separate awards for specific items: the events and the traumaarising therefromare so closely inter-related that it would notbesensible to do otherwise.[9]Counsel from both sides referred me to various cases relevant to the question ofquantum. I have read others as well. These, in chronological order,are the cases whichIhave read to decide the question:May v Union Govt.1954 (3) SA (N);Solomon v Visser and Another1972 (2) SA 327(A);Donono v Minister of Prisons1973 (4) SA 259(C);Areff v Minister van Polisie1977 (2) SA 900(A);Minister van Polisie en ’n Ander v Gamble en ’n Ander1979 (4) SA 759(A);Minister van Wet & Orde v Van Den Heever1982(4)SA 16 (C);Stapelberg v Afdelingsraad Van Die Kaap1988 (4) SA 875 (C);Ramakulukusha v The Commander Venda National Force1989(2) SA 813(V);Ochse v King Williams’ Town Municipality1990 (2) SA 855(E);Thandani v Minister of Law & Order1991 (1) SA 702(E);Mthimkulu and Another v

Minister of Law and Order1993 (3) SA 432(E);Tdt v Ipser1993 (3) SA 577(A);Moses v Minister of Law and Order1995 (2) SA518 (C );Bentley and Anotherv Mc Pherson1999 (3) SA 854(E);Themba v Minister of Safety and Security(unreported judgmentin this divisionofmy brotherMarais J, Case No.14968/97 delivered 8 Mar 2000);Tobani v Minister of Correctional Services NO[2000] 2 All SA 318(SE);Liu QuinPingv Akani Egoli (Pty) Ltdt/a Gold Reef City Casino2000 (4) 68 (W);Manase v Minister of Safety and Security and Another2003 (1) 567 (CkHC).

IN THE HIGH COURT OF

SOUTH AFRICA

(

Witwatersrand

Local Division)

Case No: 26508/2001

In the matter between:

Dennis SEYMOUR

Plaintiffand

The Minister of Safety and Security

Defendant

_______________

JUDGMENT

WILLIS J.

[1]This is a claim for general damages consequent upon an unlawful arrest and related matters.[2]The plaintiffis a 66-year old man.He grew up in impoverished circumstances inEast Londonas a so-called “coloured person”.He proudly describes himself now as a “Black South African”.Hishighest level of formal educationisStandard 10. For many years he was a trades union official. He is today,the managing director of a public company and chairman of the Ennersdale Farmers’ Co-operativeAssociation. In both these capacities,he was actively involved in the Simunye Dairy Project which received assistance from, among others,the Danish International Development Agency (DANIDA) and the Land Bank.The Simunye Dairy Project has, in the past,received high praise in the press, from the Royal Danish Embassy and the South African Government.The project received public commendation from the provincial and national ministries of agriculture in particular.[3]It is common cause that the plaintiffwas arrested on 29thDecember 2000,without a warrant( on chargesfor which a warrant for his arrest would have been required) by one Inspector Smith,who, at the time, was acting within the course and scope of his employment with the South African Police Services. Inspector Smith has since been discharged from service. It is not clear precisely on what charges the plaintiff was arrested. When he was

detained initially,he was told it was for “intimidation”,but the next day,when was taken to the Johannesburg Central Police Station, he was told it wasfor fraud. Inspector Smith came to the business premises of the plaintiff late on the afternoon of29thDecember2000,and commanded the plaintiff to accompany him to the Ennersdale Police station,where he informed him he was under arrest. Attempts by the plaintiff’s family to arrange for him to be released on bail were thwarted by Inspector Smith. The plaintiff’s family arranged for him to be visited by the family doctor, Dr Vallabh, the next day. Dr Vallabh examined the plaintiffduring the morningand discovered that he was suffering from angina, an irregular heartbeat, high blood pressure and a high pulse rate. Dr Vallabh informed the police that there were serious risks associated with the health of the plaintiff and that he should immediately be sent to the Rand Clinic for further tests, observations and treatment.Although the plaintiff had previously suffered from hypertension, Dr Vallabh had no doubt that the plaintiff’s medical condition,on that day,was directly attributable to the stress which the plaintiff had been experiencing as a result of his detention.WhenDr Vallabh was informed by the plaintiff’s family late that afternoon that he had still notbeen taken to Rand Clinic, Dr Vallabhagain prevailed on the police to take

him to hospital as a matter or urgency. The police relented,but took him to the hospitalonly after he had been taken to the Johannesburg Central Police Station. He was put in the back of a van and transported, according to various witnesses,at an unnecessarily high speed and in extreme discomfort. The hospital records confirm the seriousness of Dr Vallabh’s diagnosis. The plaintiff was kept under arrest at the Rand Clinic and was brought to court on3rdJanuary, 2001. All charges were withdrawn against him and no further charges have since been laid. The plaintiff has a completely clean criminal record.[4]Subsequent to the plaintiff’s release, Superintendent Smith arrived uninvited at a meeting of the Simunye Diary,at which were present not only the plaintiff but also the Simunye Diary’s auditor,a representative of the Danish International Development Agency(DANIDA), the Land Bankand various other persons. Superintendent Smith was asked by the plaintiff to leave the meeting. He obliged,but before he did so, hesaid to the plaintiff,in the presence oftheothers,that he would still “get” the plaintiff “for fraud and misappropriation of funds”. Since that date, theSimunye DairyProjecthas received no further financial assistance from DANIDA or the Land Bank.[5]Quite whySuperintendent Smithacted as he did is not clear.It does seemthat some members of Ennersdale Farmers’ Co-operative

Association were unhappy that, for reasons beyond the control of the plaintiff, theycould not participate in the Simunye Dairy Project and complained to the police.[6]The evidence of the plaintiff, his family, Dr Vallabh, whohas been his medical doctor bothbeforeand afterthe incidents in question, and Dr Shosana Saffer,a psychiatrist who examined him afterwards, all indicate that the plaintiff sufferred extreme stress during his unlawful arrest and detention as well asafterwards as a result thereof. His reputation has suffered and his dignityhas beenmost sorely infringed.The plaintiff had travelled, mainly by dint of hard work, from humble beginnings to being a man of considerable standing in the community.Theplaintiff isaproud man and a devout Christian. He is the patriarch of a large family of children and grandchildren. Every year as the Old Year passed and the New Year was ushered in, the plaintiff and his family would experience the event with prayers of thanks for things past and prayers of hope and faith for things new. It hurt both the plaintiff and his family deeply that he was detainedin this manner and in these circumstancesat the height of the festive season.For reasons which are not clear the relationship between the plaintiff and his wife deteriorated as a result of these incidents, according to Dr Vallabh. The plaintiff’s wife took it very badly. She has since died.[7]The plaintiff has claimed R10 million as general damages for “pain and suffering, emotional shock, deprivation of liberty, post-traumatic syndrome, invasion of privacy, intimidation andcontumelia”.

[1]

This is a claim for general damages consequent upon an unlawful arrest and related matters.

[2]

The plaintiff

is a 66

-

year old man.

He grew up in impoverished circumstances in

East London

as a so

called “coloured person”.

He proudly describes himself now as a “Black South African”.

H

is

highest level of formal education

Standard 10. For many years he was a trades union official. He is today

,

the managing director of a public company and chairman of the Ennersdale Fa

r

mers’ Co-operative

Association

. In both these capacities

he was actively in

v

ol

ed in the Simunye Dairy Project whi

c

h received assistance from, among others

the Danish International Development Agency (DANIDA) and the Land Bank.

The Simunye Dairy Project has, in the past

received high praise in the press, from the Royal Danish Embassy and the South African Government.

The project received public commendation from the provincial and national ministries of agriculture in particular.

[3]

It is common cause that the plaintiff

was arrested on 29

th

December 2000

without a warrant

( on charges

for which a warrant for his arrest would have been required) by one Inspector Smith

who, at the time, was acting within the course and scope of his employment with the South African Police Services. Inspector Smith has since been discharged from service. It is not clear precisely on what charges the plaintiff was arrested. When he was detained initially

he was told it was for “intimidation”

but the next day

when was taken to the Johannesburg Central Police Station, he was told it was

for fraud. Inspector Smith came to the business premises of the plaintiff late on the afternoon of

29

December

2000

and commanded the plaintiff to accompany him to the Ennersdale Police station

where he informed him he was under arrest. Attempts by the plaintiff’s family to arrange for him to be rel

e

ased on bail were thwarted by Inspector Smith. The plaintiff’s family arr

a

nged for him to be visited by the family doctor, Dr Vallabh

, the next day. Dr V

allabh examined the plaintiff

during the morning

and discovered that he was suffering from angina, an irregular heartbeat, high blood pressure and a high pulse rate. Dr Vallabh informed the police that there were serious risks associated with the health of the plaintiff and that he should immediately be sent to the Rand Clinic for further tests, observations and treatment.

Although the plaintiff had previously suffered from hypertension, Dr Vallabh had no doubt that the plaintiff’s medical condition

on that day

was directly attributable to the stress which the plaintiff had been experiencing as a result of his detention.

When

Dr V

allabh was informed by the pla

i

ntiff’s family late that afternoon that he had still not

been taken to Rand Clinic, Dr V

allabh

gain prevailed on the police to take him to hospital as a matter or urgency. The police relented

but took him to the hospital

only after he had been taken to the Johannesburg Central Police Station. He was put in the back of a van and transported, according to various witnesses

at an unnecessarily high speed and in extreme discomfort. The hospital records confirm the seriousness of Dr Vallabh’s diagnosis. The plaintiff was kept under arrest at the Rand Clinic and was brought to court on

3

rd

January, 2001

. All charges were withdrawn against him and no further charges have since been laid. The plaintiff has a completely clean criminal record.

[4]

Subsequent to the plaintiff’s release, Superintendent Smith arrived uninvited at a meeting of the Simunye Diary

at which were present not only the plaintiff but also the Simunye Diary’s auditor,

a representati

ve of the Danish International Development Agency

(DANIDA)

, the Land B

ank

and various other persons. Superintendent Smith was asked by the plaintiff to leave the meeting. He obliged

but before he did so

, he

said to the plaintiff

in the presence of

the

others

that he would still “get” the plaintiff “for fraud and misappr

o

priation of funds”. Since that date

, the

Simunye Dairy

Project

has rec

ived no further financial assistance from DANIDA or the Land Bank.

[5]

Quite why

Superintendent Smith

acted as he did is not clear.

It does seem

that some members of Ennersdale Farmers’ Co-operative Association were unhappy that, for reasons beyond the control of the plaintiff, the

y

could not participate in the Simunye Dairy Project and complained to the police.

[6]

The evidence of the plaintiff, his family, Dr Vallabh, who

has been his medical doctor both

before

and after

the inciden

ts in question, and Dr Shosana S

affer

a psychiatrist who examined him afterwards, all indicate that the plaintiff sufferred extreme stress during his unlawful arrest and detention a

s well as

afterwards as a result thereof. His reputation has suffered and his dignity

has been

most sorely infringed.

The plaintiff had travelled, mainly by dint of hard work, from humble beginnings to being a man of considerable standing in the community.

The

plaintiff is

proud man and a devout Christian. He is the patriarch of a large family of children and grandchildren. Every year as the Old Year passed and the New Year was ushered in, the plaintiff and his family would experience the event with prayers of thanks for things past and prayers of hope and faith for things new. It hurt both the plaintiff and his family deeply that he was detained

in this manner and in these circumstances

at the height of the festive season.

For reasons which are not clear the relationship betwe

n the plaintiff and his wife deteriorated as a result of these incidents, according to Dr Vallabh. The plaintiff’s wife took it very badly

. She has since died.

[7]

The plaintiff has claimed R10 million as general damages for “pain and suffering, emotional shock, deprivation of liberty, post-traumatic syndrome, invasion of privacy, intimidation and

contumelia

”.

[8]Essentially, all that is in issue is the question ofquantum. MrStockwell, who appears for the plaintiff, agreed that it would be best that I make a single award for “general damages” rather than separate awards for specific items: the events and the traumaarising therefromare so closely inter-related that it would notbesensible to do otherwise.

[8]

Essentially, all that is in issue is the question of

quantum

. Mr

Stockwell

, who appears for the plaintiff, agreed that it would be best that I make a single award for “general damages” rather than separate awards for specific items: the events and the trauma

arising therefrom

are so closely inter-related that it would not

be

sensible to do otherwise.

[9]

Counsel from both sides referred me to various cases relevant to the question of

. I have read others as well. These, in chronological order

are the cases which

I

have read to decide the question:

May v Union Govt

.

1954 (3) SA (N)

;

Solomon v Visser and Another

1972 (2) SA 327(A)

1972 (2) SA 327

Donono v Minister of Prisons

1973 (4) SA 259(C)

1973 (4) SA 259

Areff v Minister van Polisie

1977 (2) SA 900(A)

1977 (2) SA 900

Minister van Polisie en ’n Ander v Gamble en ’n Ander

1979 (4) SA 759(A)

1979 (4) SA 759

Minister van Wet & Orde v Van Den Heever

1982

4

)

SA 16 (C)

Stapelberg v Afdelingsraad Van Die Kaap

1988 (4

) SA 875 (

C)

Ramakulukusha v The Commander Venda National Force

1989

(2) SA 813(V)

Ochse v King Williams’ Town Municipality

1990 (2) SA 855(E)

1990 (2) SA 855

Thandani v Minister of Law & Order

1991 (1) SA 702(E)

1991 (1) SA 702

Mthimkulu and A

nother v Minister of Law and Order

1993 (3) SA 432(E)

1993 (3) SA 432

Tdt v Ipser

1993 (3) SA 577(A);

1993 (3) SA 577

Moses v Minister of Law and Order

1995 (2) SA

518 (C )

Bentley and Another

v Mc Pherson

1999 (3) SA 854(E)

1999 (3) SA 854

Themba v Minister of Safety and Security

(unreported judgment

in this division

of

my brother

Marais J

, Case No.

14968/97 delivered 8 Mar 2000)

Tobani v Minister of Correctional Services NO

[2000] 2 All SA 318(SE)

[2000] 2 All SA 318

Liu Quin

Ping

v Akani Egoli (Pty) Ltd

t

/a Gold Reef City Casino

2000 (4) 68 (W);

Manase v Minister of Safety and Security and Another

2003 (1) 567 (CkHC)

Each case must be decided on its own merits and the facts in each of the above cases are distinguishable from the facts in the present one.

[10]

The case which I find most illuminating, however, is

supra

).

In that case

an advocate was wrongfully arrested and detained for a few hours. Broome JP awarded the plaintiff1000. This

amount

would be worth of the order of R350 000 to R400 000 today.

The compounding effect of the erosion of the value of money over time is truly astonishing.

Of course, it is dangerous to try to determine the present value of money which was used 50 years ago: over such a period of time there are considerable changes in the ways in which people live and move and have their being. Nevertheless, it is clear that1000, 50 years ago, was a substantial sum of money.

The case was decided

0 years before we had consitutionally enshrined rights to freedom and dignity and much else besides. In

R

amakulukusha

’s

case

the learned judge (at 847 B-C) expressed his surprise at “the comparatively low an

d insignificant awards made in S

outhern

A

frican courts for infringements of personal safety, dignity, honour, self-esteem and reputation.” I share his surprise.

It is nevertheless sobering to reflect that, at the time when the learned judge delivered his judgment, detention without trial was a measure sanctioned and not infrequently resorted to by the State. So careless was the State as to the concept of dignity that rights and privileges were allocated according to a person’s race.

It seems to me that the Courts must move, however glacially, to reflect in their awards for damages in cases of this nature, the changes in values which have occurred not only in society as a whole but which we as judges are expected to apply.

[11]

Section 12 of our Cons

itution gives everyone th

right to “

freedom and security of the person, which includes the right-

(a)

not to be deprived of freedom arbitrarily or wihout just cause;(b)not to be detained without trial.”

not to be deprived of freedom arbi

rarily or wihout just cause;

(b)

not to be detained without trial.”

Section 14 confers on everyone the right to privacy.Section 35 gives detailed rights to arrested, detained and accused persons, including the right to be brought expeditiously to court, to be released if the interests of justice permit and upon reasonable conditions, to humane conditions of detention, including medical treatment and to be informed ofthereasons fortheirdetention.[12]All these rights were in some degree infringed. The plaintiff, most passionately,and perhaps most tellingly as a man of “the struggle,” invoked his rightsto dignityin terms of section10which provides that: “Everyone has inherent dignity and the right to have their dignity respected and protected.”Unquestionably this right was infringed.[13] Later this year, people of goodwill everywhere will celebrate the 60thanniversary of the end of the Second World War. It will be an appropriate time for us to remind ourselves, once again,how important the human rights enshrined in our Constitution are.If we, as Courts, value those rights, this must be reflected in in our judgments. The police necessarily have massive and ferocious powers. The Courts must be astute to stand resolute against any abuse thereof. It is we alone who are the last defence against the denial of freedom. In my respectful view, more than a judicial “slap on the wrist” is warranted in this case.It is trite that the primary function of awards

fordamages under theactio injuriarumis to compensate the victim for his or heriniuriaeand is not exemplary. Lest it be thought that I have misunderstood the position, I wish to emphasise that my conclusion is this: a shift, even though it is not a so-called “sea-change”, must be manifested in thevaluewhich the Courts attach to freedom and, correspondingly,thevalueto be applied to a person’s deprivation thereof.

Section 14 confers on everyone the right to privacy

Section 35 gives detailed rights to arrested, detained and accused persons, including the right to be brought expeditiously to court, to be released if the interests of justice permit and upon reasonable conditions, to humane conditions of detention, including medical treatment and to be informed of

reasons for

their

detention.

[12]

All these rights were in some degree infringed. The plaintiff, most passionately

and perhaps most tellingly as a man of “the struggle

” invoked his rights

to dignity

in terms of section

10

which provides that: “

Everyone has inherent dignity and the right to have their dignity respected and protected.

”

Unquestionably this right was infringed.

[13

] Later this year, people of goodwill everywhere will celebrate the 60

anniversary of the end of the Second World War. It will be an appropriate time for us to remind ourselves

, once again,

how important the human rights enshrined in our Constitution are.

If we, as Courts, value those rights, this must be reflected in in our judgments. The police necessarily have massive and ferocious powers. The Courts must be astute to stand resolute against any abuse thereof. It is we alone who are the last defence against the denial of freedom. In my respectful view, more than a judicial “slap on the wrist” is warranted in this case.

It is trite that the primary function of awards fo

dam

ges under the

actio injuriarum

is to compensate the victim for his or her

iniuriae

and is not exemplary. Lest it be thought that I have misunderstood the position, I wish to emphasise that my conclusion is this: a shift, even though it is not a so-called “sea-change”, must be manifested in the

value

which the Courts attach to freedom and, correspondingly,

to be applied to a person’s deprivation thereof.

[14]Takingeverything into account, the following order is made:Thedefendant is to pay the plaintiff-(a)

[14]

Taking

everything into account, the following order is made:

defendant is to pay the plaintiff

The sum of R500 000,00(Five hundred thousand rands);(b)Interest on the aforesaid sum,at the prescribed rate of interest, from date of judgment to date of payment;(c)Costs of suit.

The sum of R500 000,00

(Five hundred thousand rands);

Interest on the aforesaid sum

at the prescribed rate of interest, from date of judgment to date of payment;

(c)

Costs of suit.

DATED ATJOHANNESBURGTHIS 16thDAY of FEBRUARY, 2005N.P. WILLISJUDGE OF THE HIGH COURT

DATED AT

JOHANNESBURG

THIS 16

DAY of FEBRUARY, 2005

N.P. WILLISJUDGE OF THE HIGH COURT

Appearance for the Plaintiff: Mr Moodliyar (attorney) of Moodliyar and BedhesiFor the Defendant: RStockwellSCAttorneys for Defendant: State Attorney

Appearance for the Plaintiff: Mr Moodliyar (attorney) of Mo

dliyar and BedhesiFor the Defendant: R

SC

Attorneys for Defendant: State Attorney

Dates of hearing: 14

and

15

February, 2005

Date of judgment:

16

F

ebruary, 2005