Court awards $280k to man kept in legal limbo for over a decade

A High Court judge has awarded $280 000 in damages to a man who spent more than a decade under the shadow of a murder charge that was never brought to trial.

Micah Laron Chase, who was charged in 2011 with the murder of Julius Gittens, spent 27 months in prison before finally securing bail — and then another seven years on bail, after his matter stalled in the court system. The charge against him was formally discontinued in 2021, nearly a full decade after his initial arrest.

The then 28-year-old Bayville, St Michael man had been accused, along with two others, with Gittens’ shooting death on February 18, 2010 on Spry Street, The City.

Chase, through his attorney Larry Smith KC, argued that three of his rights had been violated — the right under Section 11(a) of the Constitution to the security of the person, the right under section 11(c) to the protection of the law, and the right under Section 18(1) to have a fair hearing within a reasonable time by an independent and impartial court established by law.

Justice Patrick Wells, in handing down his 49-page ruling on Wednesday, said it was “telling” that one of Chase’s co-accused was tried for murder and acquitted in 2013, yet Chase’s case “continued to languish” without a trial.

“This was unconscionable, and was a reckless, arbitrary, and abusive exercise of State power and authority,” the judge said.

He said the State had a duty to review the evidence after the 2013 acquittal and determine whether it was reasonable to continue prosecuting Chase. Instead, he said, Chase was left in legal limbo for years, without trial or meaningful updates.

“This was not only clearly a violation of his right to a fair trial within a reasonable time and his right to security of the person and to protection of the law, but also, in my view, a demonstration of abject disregard for the rule of law in principle, and a depiction of callous unaccountability and irresponsibility . . . .

“The fact that the State, without more, continued to have Mr Chase before the court, even after his co-accused was found not guilty, with no explanation why given to this court, shows a degree of impunity that is confoundingly staggering. In my view, it speaks of indifference, apathy, oblivion, and contempt,” Justice Wells said.

The judge awarded Chase $250 000 in compensation — with interest of six per cent from date of judgment to the date of complete satisfaction of the judgment — “for all the 27 months of lost freedom; a further seven-plus years of impaired freedom on bail; and the psychological, emotional, social, occupational, and familial harm that has been done to him.”

He also awarded a further $30 000 in vindicatory damages for the three rights “as a whole” that were contravened by the State.

“We live in a democracy in this country, and in a society where the rule of law and the sanctity of the rights contained in the Constitution are fundamental,” said Justice Wells who added that preserving such rights must be uppermost in the minds of those who have power and authority over the citizens in society.

“The State must not, should not, and cannot, abuse the rights of citizens with the kind of impunity that was evident in this case. While constitutional damages are not meant to punish the State, they must nevertheless, according to the principles of law explored above, serve as a deterrence to unconstitutional, abusive, arbitrary and constitutionally contravening behaviour on the part of the State.”

However, he made it clear that constitutional redress, which is reflected in the discretionary award of damages by a court, “must never be conceived of, or understood as, winning the lottery, winning a jackpot, or winning a bonanza”.

“Instead, such redress must be understood to be one of the tools available to the court to justly compensate for, and or vindicate the contravention of the constitutional rights of the members of society, in a fair, reasonable and justifiable way, based on all the known circumstances, and on the settled principles of law,” Well said.

The High Court judge added: “Equally, while the status of the public purse is not a principle in law known to this court in matters of this nature, it must similarly be understood that the public purse is not a bottomless reservoir of fortune that is there with an abundance of fruits ripe for the picking for truly mindless, uncalled for, and atrocious contraventions of fundamental rights.”