A practicing Muslim, whose beard was shaved by prison officials while he was serving a short sentence almost two decades ago, is set to receive $200,000 in compensation.
Shazim Mohammed filed a constitutional case over what transpired, two months after being released from prison in May 2005.
The case remained in a state of abeyance for well over a decade before it was eventually assigned to Justice Robin Mohammed (no relation) in 2019.
Shortly after Justice Mohammed took charge of the case, the Office of the Attorney General opted to not challenge Mohammed’s allegations or justify the actions of the prison officers responsible.
While the AG’s Office consented to a default judgment being entered against it, it contested the nature and extent of the compensation being claimed.
Justice Mohammed assessed the compensation in a decision on Tuesday.
According to the evidence, between May 2001 and May 2005, Mohammed was serving a six-year prison sentence. He claimed that the day after he entered the Port-of-Spain Prison, prison officers shaved his beard, which he keeps as part of his religious beliefs.
While Mohammed claimed he did not resist because he was unaware of his constitutional and legal rights, he said he challenged the officers after they sought to shave him again several months later. Mohammed said he referred the officers to a prison rule which prevents officials from cutting the hair of Muslims in the absence of a written order from a medical officer based on the presence of vermin or dirt and on health grounds.
He claimed then-Superintendent of Prisons Edwin Grell acknowledged the rule but maintained their action was necessary.
Mohammed said he reluctantly complied after the officers threatened to handcuff him.
Mohammed again refused when officers sought to shave him several months later and he was barred from attending weekly prayer sessions, teaching Arabic lessons and participating in Eid celebrations. The ban stayed in place for the rest of prison stint.
He also claimed the officers refused to confirm whether the meat served to prisoners was halal and he was forced to keep a vegetarian diet to maintain his religious beliefs.
In his assessment, Justice Mohammed noted that the declarations over the breaches of his constitutional rights, which he received upon the State conceding the case, were insufficient to compensate him.
“While I accept that the applicant has not submitted medical reports or corroborating evidence to support his claim for damages, I am minded to accept that the applicant did suffer distress and inconvenience, especially having regard to the aggravating circumstances he was forced to endure,” Justice Mohammed said.
“In this case, there was discrimination and a clear denial of the applicant’s religious freedom to observe his religious beliefs and practices that are well deserving of vindication by monetary compensation.”
Justice Mohammed ordered $135,000 in general damages and $65,000 in vindicatory damages to highlight to prison authorities the importance of the right and seriousness of their breach.
“I consider the actions of the prison authorities to be untenable as those actions went well beyond institutional inertia but appeared to be blatant, deliberate, and actuated by malice,” he said.
“Such actions highlighted and renounced to avoid recurrences and breaches to prisoners’ rights.” The outcome of Mohammed’s case comes almost two weeks after prison officer Arshad Singh was granted leave to pursue a lawsuit against the Prisons Commissioner for allegedly bypassing him for promotion because of his beard, which he keeps as a practising Muslim.
Mohammed was represented by Sunil Gopaul-Gosine, while Daniella Boxill and Lisanne Thomas represented the State.
