The High Court has ruled that the State violated the constitutional rights of the mother of Chakadan Daniel by failing to conduct and complete a prompt and effective investigation into his death while in police custody more than a decade ago, ordering authorities to conclude the investigation within six months and awarding her EC$75,000 in constitutional and vindicatory damages.
In a judgment delivered on July 29, Justice Alvin Shiva Pariagsingh found that Frances Daniel’s constitutional right to the protection of the law had been breached due to the State’s prolonged failure to complete an effective investigation into the death of her 22 year old son, who died while detained at the Micoud Police Station on October 23, 2013.
According to the evidence before the court, Chakadan Daniel had been arrested under a warrant and was being held at the Micoud Police Station when he was found dead inside his cell.
Police informed his mother that he had hanged himself using a white cord. However, Ms. Daniel testified that when she viewed her son’s body, the scene appeared inconsistent with that explanation.
A post mortem examination determined that Daniel died from asphyxia caused by ligature compression of the neck but also documented blunt force trauma to the head and abrasions around the neck.
The pathologist concluded there were two possible scenarios; self inflicted hanging or blunt force trauma followed by strangulation and the staging of a hanging. While the pathologist favoured the first explanation, he acknowledged the alternative could not be ruled out.
In July 2015, a Coroner’s jury returned a verdict of unlawful killing. Despite that finding, no criminal charges have been laid and the investigation remains incomplete.
Commissioner of Police Verne Garde acknowledged that the investigation was still ongoing and accepted that an unlawful killing verdict would ordinarily require further investigation and the matter to be brought before the courts.
During a police press conference, he he noted that since assuming office in September 2024, he had directed additional investigative steps, including forensic analysis, DNA testing and a peer review of the original pathology report. However, he was unable to explain the lengthy delay before his appointment.
Justice Pariagsingh found that while recent investigative efforts demonstrated diligence by the current Commissioner, they did not justify the more than 12 year delay following Daniel’s death or the more than 10 years that had elapsed since the Coroner’s verdict.
“The State has not provided a coherent explanation for the passage of time between 2013 and 2024,” the judge concluded, finding that the investigation had not been completed within a reasonable time and that the prolonged delay amounted to a continuing denial of Frances Daniel’s constitutional right to the protection of the law.
The court also addressed whether Ms. Daniel had the legal standing to pursue the constitutional claim.
Although she withdrew her original claim alleging a violation of her deceased son’s constitutional right to life, the judge held that she was entitled to pursue her own constitutional claim arising from the State’s alleged failure to investigate his death effectively.
Justice Pariagsingh stressed that the ruling does not give the court authority to direct criminal prosecutions, noting that prosecutorial decisions remain the responsibility of the Director of Public Prosecutions. However, he held that the Constitution requires the State to ensure a prompt, effective and transparent investigative process where a person dies in State custody.
In addition to awarding Ms. Daniel EC$75,000 in constitutional and vindicatory damages, the court ordered the State to complete the investigation within six months.
If that deadline cannot be met, the State must provide both the court and Ms. Daniel with a detailed report outlining the investigative steps taken, the outstanding work, the reasons for the delay and an anticipated timeline for completion.
The Attorney General was also ordered to pay Ms. Daniel’s legal costs, to be assessed if not agreed.
