‘Extremely low’ $4.5m awarded to dependents years after office attendant killed by cops

The dependents of 42-year-old Dianne Gordon have been left disappointed with the Supreme Court award of $4.6 million with interest that the Government has been ordered to pay for the unwarranted firing of gunshots by policemen, 10 of which struck Gordon and killed her instantly on March 16, 2012.

Supreme Court Judge Leighton Pusey, in assessing damages, pointed out that there was no evidence to suggest that, at the time of her death, the policemen were acting in lawful self-defence or were under any attack from any member of the deceased’s community.

Gordon died, leaving behind her spouse Hugh Collins and daughters Cameshia Collins and Christina Collins, who were her dependents.

Attorney-at-law Carleen McFarlane, who represented the claimants, told The Gleaner yesterday that the dependents were disappointed with the small amount awarded and pointed out that they did not have the means to appeal the award.

McFarlane also described the award as “extremely low”.

A claim was filed in 2014 by Hugh Collins and the Administrator General of Jamaica against ‘Sergeant Vassell’ and the Attorney General. The defendants accepted liability and the matter was set for assessment of damages, which was completed on July 7 this year. A defence was filed in relation to the quantum of damages.

The claimants stated that the injuries subsequent to Gordon’s death were as a result of the negligent and or wrongful shooting by Sergeant Vassell and other members of the Jamaica Constabulary Force (JCF), which caused the dependents to suffer injury, loss, damage and incurred expenses.

Shot on way to ‘dead yard’

It was stated in court that, at 1 a.m. on March 16, 2012, Gordon was walking from her home, which is in a community off Constant Spring Road, St Andrew, to a ‘dead yard’ nearby, when high-powered weapons were fired, hitting her in the head and other parts of her body. She died instantly from the gunshot wounds.

The claimants said the deceased was an office attendant and she and her spouse, Collins, operated a shop. One of her daughters attended a preparatory school and the other a tertiary institution at the time of her death, and were dependent on her for financial support.

Pusey, in referring to the post-mortem report, said he was satisfied on balance of probabilities that the breach of duty by the defendants resulted in Gordon’s death, therefore damages would be assessed according to the injuries.

The younger daughter, Cameshia, said her mother was not there to share in her happiness when she passed her exam for a traditional high school and, to this day, she still has the image of her mother’s mutilated body in her mind and has nightmares about it. The other daughter, Christina, spoke of not being able to sleep at night after seeing her mother’s body torn up by the bullets. The spouse outlined the emotional pain, trauma and nightmares he has had since the incident.

“There is no doubt that seeing a close relative lifeless and, in the manner in which the dependents of Dianne saw her, may cause PTSD ( post-traumatic stress disorder). However, the court is mindful that the dependents are not qualified to make these assessments themselves,” the judge said.

The three dependents were awarded $100,000 each in nominal damages, as the judge found that no expert evidence was presented to prove the psychiatric injuries of PTSD pleaded. The deceased’s spouse, who had been in a relationship with her for 25 years, was awarded general damages of $102,400, with interest at three per cent per anum from March 16, 2012 to July 7, 2023 for negligence. Under the Fatal Accidents Act, the spouse was awarded $422,000 with three per cent interest for special damages.

Under the Law Reform (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act, the Administrator General was awarded $250,000 in damages, for loss of life, and $3.6 million for loss of future earnings. Interest at three per cent from March 16, 2012 to July 7 was awarded on the sums. The total sum would go to Gordon’s estate for distribution to her beneficiaries.

The judge made no award for aggravated damages, as he said “in the instant case, the court’s view is that an award for aggravated damages would not be appropriate. Though the actions of the first defendant and the other members of the JCF could be high-handed and oppressive, there is nothing which indicates that their conduct or behaviour was arrogant, spiteful or malevolent”.

Attorneys-at-law Gail Mitchell and Celia Middleton, instructed by the director of state proceedings, represented the defendants.

editorial@gleanerjm.com