Businessman Luke Hadeed is to be awarded over half a million dollars after the court found that police searches of his business place and his house back in 2022 were unlawful.
The ammunition officers found and seized was also ordered to be returned.
Hadeed and his company, Aston Enterprises Ltd, had filed for judicial review against the Commissioner of Police and Sgt Matthew Haywood following the searches.
The matter was before Justice Avason Quinlan-Williams, who found that that Hadeed was entitled to pursue his claim for judicial review.
Court documents in the matter described Hadeed as a businessman who engaged in importing and selling firearms and accessories under his firearm dealer’s licence. He is also the holder of a firearm user’s licence.
The December 5, 2024, judgment also stated that over the past eight years, he was engaged in commercial activity with the Defence Force, and the police have always been involved in the importation of his firearms and ammunition. His books and records are regularly updated, in accordance with the Firearms Act, Chapter 16:01, and have always been available for inspection by the Trinidad and Tobago Police Service (TTPS).
Sgt Matthew Haywood went to Aston Enterprises Ltd on September 2, 2022, to get information while investigating a man who they alleged obtained an unauthorised component for a firearm.
On October 8, 2022, Haywood and his team of police officers went to Aston Enterprises to execute the search warrant. In a cupboard on the premises, they found three pistol magazines, two of which contained ten rounds of live ammunition and the other was empty. Haywood seized the three magazines as he said the pistol was supposed to have only two.
After the initial entry at Aston Enterprises on October 8, he returned on October 10, 11, 12, 15 and 17 in 2022. He claimed the search was complex, owing to the size of the premises, the number of items required to be searched, that the premises were never inspected and Hadeed was uncooperative.
Another search was also done at Hadeed’s home.
Bad faith
On the issue of the continued searches on the premises, it was noted that the warrant from Haywood did not contain any period by which the warrant remained lawful. The judge however noted that while Section 30 of the Firearms Act stipulated that a police officer can enter “at any time any premises or place named in the warrant”, it is not to be interpreted as the police, by virtue of a single warrant, can enter as many times as required under a single warrant.
Justice Quinlan-Williams said what it allows is the police to enter and remain on the premises as long as it takes for the search to commence and be completed, even if that went overnight and into a next day.
“Once the search is continuous, there could be no complaint. The law as expounded by both parties is pellucid. Unless stated otherwise, a search warrant shrouding the police with the power of entry, search and seizure permits one single entry of the premises. It does not authorise multiple and continued entries into someone’s premises,” the court said.
The court found that when Haywood left the business place on October 8, the warrant had been executed. “It was no longer valid and did not authorise any further entry into the second claimant’s premises,” the judge said.
It was concluded that other searches at the business place, under the guise of the warrant dated the September 30, 2022, were unlawful as the search warrant had already been executed.
The court also concluded that having regard to the numerous searches by Haywood, there was bad faith in the actions against Hadeed and the company.
It was also found that the ammunition was unlawfully seized, and during the execution of the warrant, “The claimant had less rounds of ammunition than he is authorised to carry. Therefore, the ammunition was unlawfully retained. The court is of the view that the first claimant is entitled to the return of his ammunition,” the judgment stated.
The court also found that Hadeed and his business were entitled to damages for what amounted to a trespass for the unlawful searches. The judge said, “The court is satisfied that the procurement and execution of the search warrant on the 8 October, 2022, was within the law. Every other search that followed was unlawful.”
It was ordered that the defendants pay the claim-ants’ damages in the sum of $100,000 for each unlawful search—the continuing searches on October 10, 11, 12, 15 and 17 in 2022. It was further ordered that the three magazines with 20 rounds of 9mm ammunition be returned and the claimants’ costs be paid in the sum of $135,348.50.
Hadeed and his company were represented by attorney Om Lalla, while the defendants were represented by Adita Ramdular and Yohann Niles.
