Bahamas High Court Orders $2M Compensation for Jamaican Wrongfully Held in Prison

NASSAU, Bahamas, CMC – A High Court has ordered Bahamian authorities to pay two million US dollars to a 36-year-old Jamaican who had been wrongfully held on remand in prison for nearly 10 years.

The Court heard that Matthew Sewell, who was 18 years old when he arrived in The Bahamas in June 2006 to visit his father, was arrested days after his arrival on a charge of raping a minor.

He spent two years on remand until he was given bail in May 2008. But he was arrested again in April 2009 on another rape charge and remained in prison until he got bail in August 2013. Both rape complaints were later dismissed.

In 2013, Sewell was arrested again, this time for murder and housebreaking. When he appeared in court, the murder charge was dropped because he was incarcerated at the time of the murder. He pleaded not guilty to the housebreaking charge and remained in prison until that charge was dismissed in March 2014.

The court issued two discharge certificates to Sewell, but he was arrested a month later and transferred to the Carmichael Road Detention Centre. In October 2015, a judge granted a writ of habeas corpus.

During his trial, Sewell told the court that during his time in prison, he was raped, beaten, bitten by a rat, had to share an eight-by-eight cell with other prisoners, and defecate in a bucket and a bread bag. He said he was given limited time outdoors and had to sleep on concrete.

He said he was beaten by police, prison officers, prisoners, and defence force officers.

In a ruling last week, the Supreme Court noted that “the court was amenable to accepting the stated difficulties that the Attorney General’s Office had in mounting its defence and complying with the court’s direction.

“However, it came to a point where the inability of the defendants’ counsel to comply with the court’s directions and their failure to even secure a witness statement from one or the other of the defendants left the court no other alternative but to accede to the plaintiff’s application to strike out the defence.

“Of special note for the plaintiff was that the defendants, during the many delays, never even offered an apology. This, no doubt, was reflective of the behaviour of the servants or agents of the defendants,” the Court ruled.

The Supreme Court further noted that before his first arrest, the plaintiff was a young 18-year-old of good character, and then he found himself in unfamiliar surroundings facing incredible odds.