A retired police inspector who claimed he was framed by a colleague for illegal logging, will have to repay the $300,000 in compensation he received for malicious prosecution.
In a judgment yesterday, five Law Lords of the United Kingdom-based Privy Council dismissed the final appeal brought by Harridath Maharaj.
In the appeal, Maharaj contended that the Court of Appeal was wrong to reverse the decision of High Court Judge Frank Seepersad to uphold his case and the compensation in 2020.
The panel had ruled that Justice Seepersad made four material errors when he ruled that then-Assistant Superintendent (ASP) and former Deputy Commissioner of Police (DCP) Harold Phillip did not have reasonable and probable cause to charge Maharaj for illegal logging.
They noted that even if the evidence had shown that Phillip did not have sufficient grounds to charge Maharaj, the case would have still failed as Maharaj would not have been able to prove that Phillip acted maliciously in his investigation.
According to the evidence in the case, Maharaj claimed that while assigned to the Santa Flora Police Station on August 30, 2003, he received a report of illegal logging at a forest reserve in Santa Flora.
He said he went to the site of the illegal activity where he met a group of officers from the Forestry Division of the then Ministry of Agriculture who said they were cutting down the teak and cedar trees for a government minister and a senior official in their ministry.
Several days later, Maharaj reportedly returned to the area with a tractor operator to collect the logs, had an argument with the group of forestry officers, and left empty-handed.
Weeks later, Maharaj was contacted by Phillip and informed that there was evidence to suggest that he was responsible for the illegal activity and had instructed the forestry officers to conduct the task. He was charged for felling the trees without having a permit from the ministry. The charges were eventually dismissed after a magistrate ruled that there was insufficient evidence to prove the case against Maharaj.
Weighing in on the case, Lord David Richards and four of his colleagues ruled that the Court of Appeal’s handling of the case could not be faulted.
The outcome of the appeal meant that Maharaj will now have to reimburse the State the money paid to him before the appeals were considered.
Maharaj was represented by Peter Carter, KC, Katie O’Raghallaigh, and Jared Jagroo, of Freedom Law Chambers. Robert Strang represented the AG’s Office.
