Politician Lawrence Rowe wins $1.3m in police abuse case over unlawful arrest and assault

The Supreme Court has ruled that former People's National Party (PNP) politician Lawrence Rowe was unlawfully arrested, assaulted, and maliciously prosecuted by a policeman more than a decade ago.

The judgment also carries a stern reminder to law enforcement on the proper procedure to avoid burdening taxpayers.

Justice Dale Staple, in a ruling on March 24, 2025, awarded Rowe nearly $1.3 million in damages for false imprisonment, assault, and malicious prosecution arising from a 2014 incident in Allman Town, St Andrew.

" There was no lawful basis for his arrest, detention, charge, and prosecution. I am satisfied that he was assaulted in the process of his unlawful arrest," declared Staple in the 17-page written judgment that was published on the court's website late last week.

“ I would remind the police that in the exercise of their power to arrest, charge and prosecute, that they should be mindful of the correct procedure and practice required for the several offences on the books (especially the more common ones encountered in routine beat duty) and carry out the correct processes,” Staple cautioned.

The judge said, " there needs to be more emphasis on this during initial training and continuous training and reminders for serving members of the force."

Staple added: “ By better understanding and application of the appropriate steps to take before effecting an arrest, charge and prosecution, our hardworking members of the force can significantly reduce unnecessary confrontation with members of the public, improve relationships with them, reduce litigation and ultimately save the tax payers a fortune in damages and other litigation costs that have to be expended to defend these suits.”

Rowe was the PNP’s Kingston Central constituency secretary to Ronald Thwaites, who was the member of parliament at the time of the incident. Much later, he was named the PNP's caretaker. He was removed in January 2025, after which he said he resigned from the opposition party.

Rowe has welcomed the Supreme Court decision, calling it an affirmation of his rights and a reinforcement of justice, due process, and accountability.

“This case was never just about me as an individual but about ensuring that the rule of law prevails and that citizens are protected from any abuse of power,” he said in a media statement Sunday. He said "aspects" of the judgment are being appealed.

Rowe filed the lawsuit against the Crown, represented by the attorney general, and Constable Clayton Bromfield, who was the arresting officer, on March 7, 2018. He had also claimed a breach of his constitutional rights to a fair hearing.

The trial took place on March 17, 2025.

The March 27, 2014 encounter, according to Rowe’s testimony, occurred on Stephen Street near the Allman Town Police Station. He said he was walking through the area when Constable Clayton Bromfield accosted him and ordered him to go into his yard using foul language.

Rowe said he objected and threatened to report the officer, at which point Bromfield grabbed him by the waistband “almost touching his crotch” and hauled him to the station in a humiliating manner.

He was arrested and charged with disobeying a police command, indecent language, and resisting arrest. He was later granted bail and appeared in court on April 10, 2014. He was freed of all charges in the Half-Way Tree Lay Magistrate’s Court in September 2014.

Crucially, the Supreme Court had only Rowe’s version of the events, as the constable failed to appear to testify, and the judge rejected a last-minute bid to admit his written statement.

“ I was not satisfied that the requirements under section 31E [of the Evidence Act] had been met by the defendants,” Staple said, noting the officer was being “uncooperative” despite efforts, including the possibility of remote testimony.

Nonetheless, Staple said Rowe was a “credible and reliable” witness, whose testimony was “not at all shaken in cross-examination”.

Rejecting the state’s defence, the judge said there was no lawful basis for the arrest.

“ There is no evidence that the officer had a lawful basis for telling the claimant (Rowe) to go into his yard,” the judge wrote, adding that Rowe had a “ right to assert his right to freedom of movement.”

Staple concluded that none of the alleged actions by Rowe amounted to “ disorderly and disturbing the peace” under Section 11 of the Town and Communities Act, nor was there evidence that Bromfield attempted to obtain Rowe’s name and address as required under Section 23 of the law before effecting an arrest.

Citing Shaquille Ashley v R , the judge said: “ A person has an unqualified right at common law to resist an unlawful arrest.”

“There is also no evidence that the 2 nd Defendant ( Bromfield ), at the time of making the arrest, tried to ascertain the name of the claimant,” he wrote, noting further that “even if he did [resist], he would have been entitled to resist the arrest as the arrest was unlawful.”

On malicious prosecution, Staple said there was no basis to charge Rowe in the first place. “ There is, again, no evidence from the 2 nd Defendant as to what the claimant did which would have warranted the 2 nd Defendant having any belief, let alone an honest belief, that the claimant was behaving in a disorderly manner..."

He continued: " He ( Bromfield ) had no basis for prosecuting the claimant for resisting arrest, as his arrest of the claimant was unlawful, and the claimant was entitled to resist the unlawful arrest."

As for the claim of assault, the judge found that Rowe was unlawfully handled and injured in the process.

“ The raising of the baton, the grabbing of the claimant in his waistband, the flinging of the claimant on a wall, causing the bruise to the shoulder and arms, and placing him in cuffs, etc , would all amount to assaults,” the judge ruled.

Staple awarded Rowe damages under several headings - $350,000 for malicious prosecution; $400,000 for false imprisonment; $500,000 for assault and pain and suffering, and $5,000 in special damages for transportation expenses.

Each sum carries interest of 3 per cent from either March 7, 2018, or March 27, 2014, depending on the category.

The defendants are also to pay Rowe's legal fees.

And while Rowe had no medical evidence for the assault, and the charges had been brought before a lower court with limited public visibility, the judge nonetheless found his suffering real, citing the humiliating nature of the encounter and his role in the community as the director of a charity and a figure of standing.

However, the judge declined to award vindicatory or aggravated damages, stating that “ there was no ‘deplorable abuse of power’ arising from the evidence.”

Rowe was represented by attorney John Clarke while attorneys Romario Miller and Rykel Chong appeared for the defendants.

jovan.johnson@gleanerjm.com