‘The best Christmas gift ever’

Words cannot express the joy businessman Lester Rhooms felt last week when he described an order by the Supreme Court for the police to return his money and surveillance security system as “the best Christmas gift ever”.

“I was feeling mental anguish over my ordeal but when the judge made the ruling it lifted my spirit and I said I can at least have a merry Christmas because I could never get a better gift for Christmas,” Rhooms said in an interview with The Sunday Gleaner.

Rhooms is the operator of the bottled water distribution company, Nature’s Pure Bottling Company, as well as Palais Royale Guest House, Palais Royale Nightclub and the Fireside Restaurant at 14 Ripon Road.

He said he was at his business place at 14 Ripon Road, Kingston 5, at 9.30 p.m. on July 23 this year when the police showed up, saying they wanted to search his office. He said he facilitated the search by opening the office door to his guest house and nightclub. He asked to see a search warrant and was told by the police that they were not under any obligation to show him one at that point but would do so when they got to the police station.

He said the police then removed $198,650 which he had in a drawer as the payroll for his staff at the bottling company, as well as his digital video recording surveillance system which he used to monitor the premises and deter criminal activities. He was taken to the police station and after being asked his name and age, a sergeant of police told him that he was being warned for prosecution.

He was released at 2 a.m. the next day, and then informed that he would hear from the police in due course. When he asked Detective Inspector Kenisha Gordon how he was going to get back to his business place, Rhooms disclosed that a police sergeant offered to take him back to Ripon Road. He said he was forced to ride in the back of a police vehicle with three other men, which he said put his health at risk as a mature man because there was no social distancing.

FILED A SUIT

Rhooms filed a suit in the Supreme Court in July against Detective Inspector Kenisha Gordon of the Counter-Terrorism and Organised Crime Unit (C-TOC), who led the operation, and the Attorney General.

He stated in court documents that the warrant was issued to Inspector Gordon to search the premises on the basis that certain females were being unlawfully detained for the purposes of immoral activities to be carnally known by any man. However, Rhooms is denying any such activities.

Attorney-at-law Hugh Wildman, who is representing Rhooms, applied for a mandatory injunction to compel the respondents to return the money and the equipment.

Justice Ann-Marie Lawrence-Grainger heard the application and on December 10 ordered that the equipment and the money be returned forthwith to Rhooms. The injunction remains in force until the civil suit has been heard.

“Justice has prevailed and at least we can have some confidence in the justice system,” Rhooms remarked after the ruling was handed down.

He said he was most embarrassed and humiliated when the police took him away in the presence of his patrons and friends. He was unable to pay his workers because the money was confiscated.

“I was left to the mercy of criminals without the surveillance video,” he stressed.

ERROR ON SEARCH WARRANT

Rhooms, who was not charged with any criminal offence, expressed gratitude to Wildman for “the interest he displayed in the case and the powerful legal arguments he made in court”.

The search warrant which the police had in their possession when they entered the premises in St Andrew was signed by a justice of the peace in St Thomas.

Wildman, in pointing out the error, said only a justice of the peace in Kingston and St Andrew had the jurisdiction to issue such a warrant because the search was in relation to an indictable offence. He said the warrant was a nullity and any action taken under it would be a nullity.

Wildman said attorney-at-law Robert Clarke, who represented the respondents, had consented that the surveillance video should be returned. Wildman said he argued that the money must be returned because the warrant was a nullity and the judge agreed with him. The judge also ordered the respondents to pay Rhooms’ legal costs.

“I am so happy that the ruling came at this time of the year and I am very pleased to hear my client saying that the court orders have put him in the frame of mind so he can now have a merry Christmas,” Wildman remarked.

The respondents have not yet filed a defence to the claim but Wildman says his client will be pursuing all the legal remedies available to ensure that he is adequately compensated for the wrongs done to him.

The businessman contends that there are serious issues to be tried because he was deprived of his liberty without just cause. He stated further that being deprived of his surveillance system and cash, his businesses were severely impacted financially and were “already suffering financially as a result of the coronavirus pandemic”.

Rhooms said he is hoping that the case will be disposed of expeditiously so that he can move on with his life because court matters can be stressful for litigants.

editorial@gleanerjm.com