Over the last few years, I have beaten this topic like a Good Friday bobolee. But, as is often the case, nothing changes. Life goes on, and the State continues to pay.
Last week, the Honourable Mr Justice Frank Seepersad delivered a judgment in a matter involving an allegation of malicious prosecution. Although the officers in that case were not found to have acted maliciously, the judge observed that findings of malicious prosecution should carry consequences that are not borne solely by taxpayers.
To understand this position, we must first consider what malicious prosecution means. In the Privy Council decision Stuart v Attorney General of Trinidad and Tobago [2022], the Board confirmed that a claimant must prove five elements to establish a claim of malicious prosecution:
1. The defendant initiated the proceedings against the claimant.
2. The proceedings ended in the claimant’s favour—for example, the charges were dismissed.
3. The prosecution lacked reasonable and probable cause.
4. The defendant acted maliciously.
5. The claimant suffered damage.
Several points are worth noting. First, the dismissal of a criminal charge does not automatically establish a claim for malicious prosecution.
Second, our current legislative framework—in particular, section 4 of the State Liability and Proceedings Act—protects state employees, including police officers, from liability for certain actions, including malicious prosecution.
The State has not published a consolidated record of the sums paid in malicious prosecution cases. However, based on public reports and judgments, it is reasonable to assume that the State has paid tens of millions of dollars over the past five years. In February 2026, the malicious prosecution award in the Vindra Naipaul-Coolman case was finalised. It may be the largest award of its kind in this country.
I understand the argument against making officers personally liable for damages awarded in these cases. Police officers should be able to investigate without fearing personal liability for every misstep. But that argument assumes that all officers act fairly, reasonably and honestly.
Diligent officers should have nothing to fear from a move towards some form of personal liability. Officers who abuse their positions out of personal enmity must be held accountable.
Courts have heard cases in which charges were found to be baseless, evidence had been fabricated, or officers had acted unreasonably or outside their authority. Why should the State—and ultimately taxpayers—be liable for inflated egos or poor conduct?
Taxpayers already bear the cost of increased overtime for a police service that struggles with a lack of vehicles, unanswered phones and rude treatment of people trying to make police reports. Now they must also foot the growing bill for officers’ missteps.
Personal liability may be one of the most powerful deterrents to questionable conduct. If officers know that deliberate abuse of their authority could cost them personally, that may encourage them to act as they should.
Greater accountability could also help repair the fractured relationship between the public and those sworn to protect them. Public distrust and suspicion of the police appear greater than in years gone by; confidence in the service needs to be rebuilt.
Reform should be considered so that officers who knowingly fabricate evidence, prosecute without a proper basis or act out of spite face personal consequences for their deliberate actions. The State should also consider whether it can recover compensation from officers whose misconduct causes losses to the State or an innocent party.
As in any matter before the courts, the facts will determine the outcome. A dismissed case should not, by itself, make an officer liable; further proof of misconduct would be required.
As I have said several times before, and as Justice Seepersad has now concluded, taxpayers cannot continue to pay for cases involving malicious prosecution. The State cannot continue to accept liability for unreasonable or unauthorised actions by employees simply because they were carried out under the guise of official duties.
We have begun trying to mitigate costs. The Government is reviewing its spending and the use of public funds. Should payments in cases like these be considered an unnecessary use of taxpayers’ money? It is time to consider how to stem the haemorrhaging of public funds caused by the actions of others.
Pavitra Ramharack is Head of Chambers at Pavitra Ramharack Attorneys at Law. She can be reached at ramharack_pavitra@outlook.com.
