Another big case that went to the Court of Appeal this week is the Government's attempt to get a 8.8 million dollar award of damages set aside.
As we told you, the Bahamians, Rohn Knowles and Kelvin Leach, have sued the Government and won a judgement at the Supreme Court. Justice Courtney Abel has determined that the September 2014 raid on their Titan Securities office was excessive and abusive, and that they were entitled to compensation.
The Government disagrees with the court, and they believe that they should get no compensation, because their company was worthless after their criminal indictment for securities fraud and the ongoing suspension of their trade licenses by the US authorities. Titan disagrees, and they say that the Government is disregarding the damage they did with that police raid.
Attorneys Denys Barrow and Eamon Courtenay finished with their arguments before the Court of Appeal this afternoon. After the hearing ended, they gave us an unusual joint interview, rebutting each other's points in real-time. Here's that conversation we had with them outside of court:
Denys Barrow, Attorney for GOB
"We rely on the fact that the effect of the government's, the order from the international financial service's commission which suspended the license - that suspension was never lifted and the government's case was therefore from the time that that suspension was issued, the businesses were dead. Therefore a business which is dead, a business which cannot continue to exist and to operate which can operate and earn zero dollars had no value and therefore to give compensation for the loss of a business which had zero value was wrong."
Daniel Ortiz, 7News
"Does your argument disregard the fact that the search and seizure happened and shouldn't these clients or these persons be compensated at least for that, if the court has ruled that it was unlawful?"
Denys Barrow, Attorney for GOB
"This is exactly the argument made by my learned friend. So I think he better speaks to that."
Eamon Courtenay, Attorney for TITAN
"Daniel, I think you captured the issue from our perspective. My learned friend had said that the case, the appeal should be argued on the basis that the search and seizure as found by the judge should stand. He left it by the court if they wanted to make any slight variations to that. But we were arguing about damages and I think the principle that we were seeking to establish before the court was that a wrong has been committed and if a wrong has been committed, there needs to be compensation."
"His argument was that we had to prove that the cause for which the damage occurred and my submission, based on the cases that we have reviewed is that it is sufficient to prove that a wrong has been committed, your constitutional right has been committed and therefore the court will declare that your constitutional right has been committed and thereafter if it feels appropriate, to award damages."
"Now, the bigger issue here in my view is the quantum. We put forward an expert opinion on the value of the business, future value of the business. Mr. Justice Abel reduced it by 80% and what we argued in the court here is that he was entitled to make that reduction in exercise of his discretion and that the government and the FIU has not put forward any reasons why his exercise of discretion should be interfered with."
"Now, I know their position is that these people should get zero dollars, but it cannot be right for someone's constitutional rights to be violated in such a egregious way and the answer to that is well we have mash up your business, hahaha we win you lose."
Denys Barrow, Attorney for GOB
"Certainly there was an excessive seizure, more was taken away that was properly to have been taken away, but we need to bear in mind and we argued this part of it as well that police taking more than they should when they come to raid somebody's premises, let's say they come looking for weed or firearms and ammunition. They have been other instances where more has been taken, that has anything to do with what they came there for and that does not attract 8.8 million dollars' worth of damages and we are saying that what took place here was simply, and I say simply by reference to the 23 million US which was being claimed, what took place here was simply the taking away of an office load of equipment, files, computers etc., but it was not anything more than that. Government had no beef with these people. Government had not the slightest interest with these people. The US made a request for assistance. The assistance was provided and the police went too far in what they took and if some nominal modest amount of damages as happens in a normal case were to be given, I am sure the government would regard this as a proper exercise of the court's discretion."
The Appeal Court will deliver its judgment at a later date.
| 