The case of Attorney General of Trinidad and Tobago v. Ramanoop ([2006] 1 AC 328) represents a pivotal moment in the interpretation of constitutional redress within Trinidad and Tobago’s legal framework. This case addressed whether exemplary damages could be awarded as a form of redress for violations of constitutional human rights, specifically those enshrined in Chapter I of the Constitution. The appellant, Siewchand Ramanoop, sought not only compensatory damages but also exemplary damages following severe misconduct by a police officer, PC Rahim, during his unlawful detention and assault.

The Privy Council examined whether exemplary damages could be awarded under Section 14 of the Trinidad and Tobago Constitution for contraventions of fundamental human rights. The initial trial court awarded compensatory damages but declined exemplary damages, aligning with previous jurisprudence. The Court of Appeal reversed this stance, permitting the possibility of such damages. The Privy Council upheld the Court of Appeal’s decision, emphasizing that constitutional redress under Section 14 is not limited to compensatory measures and can encompass additional awards to reflect public outrage and deter future violations.

Precedents Cited

The judgment extensively references prior decisions to contextualize the current ruling:

• Maharaj v Attorney-General of Trinidad and Tobago (No 2) [1979] AC 385: Highlighted that earlier constitutional provisions had similarities with the current Constitution but did not clarify the scope of redress.
• Attorney General of St Christopher, Nevis and Anguilla v Reynolds [1980] AC 637: Addressed compensation under constitutional provisions but left the ambit of exemplary damages ambiguous.
• Harrikissoon v Attorney-General of Trinidad and Tobago [1980] AC 265: Emphasized the necessity of preventing abuse of constitutional proceedings.
• Other local cases such as Jorsingh v Attorney General and Jaroo v Attorney-General were instrumental in shaping the understanding of constitutional redress mechanisms.

Legal Reasoning

The Court articulated that Section 14 of the Constitution grants the High Court original jurisdiction to provide redress for violations of fundamental rights. While Bereaux J initially interpreted this redress as limited to compensatory damages, the Privy Council clarified that "redress" is a broad term. It can include additional awards beyond mere compensation to acknowledge the severity of the violation and to serve a deterrent function. The Court distinguished these awards from traditional punitive or exemplary damages by emphasizing their role in vindicating rights rather than punishing misconduct.

Impact

This judgment sets a significant precedent in Trinidad and Tobago's constitutional law by affirming that exemplary damages can form part of the redress for human rights violations under Section 14. It expands the avenues for plaintiffs to receive comprehensive remedies that address not only personal loss but also the broader implications of state misconduct. Future cases involving constitutional breaches can now consider the possibility of seeking additional damages to reflect the gravity of the infringement and to discourage similar future actions by state actors.

Exemplary vs. Compensatory Damages

Compensatory damages aim to reimburse the plaintiff for actual losses suffered due to wrongdoing. In contrast, exemplary damages are intended to punish the wrongdoer and deter future misconduct. While compensatory damages address personal harm, exemplary damages reflect societal condemnation of particularly egregious behavior.

Section 14 of the Constitution

Section 14 provides a constitutional mechanism for individuals to seek redress if their fundamental rights are violated. It empowers the High Court to issue declarations, orders, and awards deemed appropriate to enforce or secure the enforcement of these rights.

Redress

In this context, "redress" encompasses any remedy the court deems suitable to rectify the violation of constitutional rights. This may include both compensatory and additional forms of damages to ensure comprehensive relief.

The Privy Council's decision in Attorney General v. Ramanoop marks a progressive step in the interpretation of constitutional remedies in Trinidad and Tobago. By affirming that exemplary damages can be included as part of constitutional redress, the ruling enhances the judiciary's capacity to provide holistic remedies for human rights violations. This not only serves the interests of justice for the aggrieved parties but also reinforces the deterrent effect against state malfeasance. As a result, the decision fortifies the constitutional safeguards intended to protect individuals from abuses of state power, ensuring a more robust enforcement of fundamental human rights.