Considering the use of excessive force by correctional service officers during an intervention in prison, including a kick in the face which broke four teeth, an inmate was awarded $30,000 in damages.
The Court of Quebec ruled in favor of Roody Louis, a man accused of murder who was awaiting his trial in prison.
“Whatever the seriousness of the crime he has committed or of which he is suspected, the imprisoned person is not stripped of his fundamental attributes which the law recognizes as human beings within society. »
Detainees should not be treated as a “banned category of society”, wrote Judge Luc Huppé in his decision handed down last week. They are full human beings, he adds.
A necessary clarification, according to the lawyer of Mr. Louis, Me Maryse Lapointe.
The litigant, who specializes in civil liability, pointed out that there is not much case law on the liability of prison guards. The detailed decision of Judge Huppé of the Court of Quebec will be used for future cases, she judges.
The proof is also not easy to do: it is often the word of the prisoner against that of the correctional officers, she specifies. “And not everything is filmed. Thursday, in an interview, she said that Mr. Louis is very happy with the judgment.
The way of carrying out interventions was in the spotlight most recently when young Nicous D’Andre Spring died in Bordeaux prison in Montreal on Christmas Eve after correctional officers allegedly used cayenne pepper and a spit mask to control it.
On December 14, 2015, Roody Louis was in a confinement area, commonly known as “the hole”, at the Rivière-des-Prairies detention center in Montreal.
In the middle of the night, the officers wanted to transfer Mr. Louis to another cell, in a less restrictive area. They need his for an inmate suspected of hiding items in his body cavities. The officers are on the alert: they believe that a firearm has illegally entered the prison.
A Correctional Emergency Response Unit (ECIU) with imposing protective equipment is set up to carry out the planned transfer at 2:17 a.m., summarizes the judge in his decision.
The agents go to his cell but Mr. Louis does not answer. Later, he will maintain that he was sleeping. They return soon after with gas masks. This time, he is awakened and informed of his transfer. He begins to pick up his things. But not fast enough for the taste of the agents, who testify that he insults them and does not obey orders, writes the magistrate. Mr. Louis is told to kneel down and cross his hands behind his head. Officers believe he offers “passive resistance.” He knelt down on the bed “to taunt us”, said one of them. And then, the situation degenerates: an “inflammatory agent” is launched into the cell: this substance aims to “create pain” to force a person to cooperate, notes the judge. Then, a “dynamic entry” is ordered.
While handcuffed, lying on the ground, Mr. Louis said he received several blows to the body and a kick in the mouth. Result: four broken teeth.
The judge notes that only 3 to 4 minutes elapsed between the moment he was informed of his transfer and the use of the inflammatory agent.
The lawsuit for damages only covers the blow in the teeth, and not the rest of the intervention. Mr. Louis will undertake a hunger strike to obtain photos “in order to provide himself with proof. »
The Attorney General of Quebec, responsible for correctional officers, maintains that there was no use of excessive force: resistance and lack of cooperation justified the measures taken. Officers deny kicking the inmate in the face and two claim he tried to bite them. The detainee had accumulated around forty disciplinary files since his arrest the previous year.
The judge identifies the delicate issue of this file, namely “the balancing of important social interests”: on the one hand, the safety of correctional officers, and on the other, the fundamental rights of inmates.
Here, the judge believes Mr. Louis when he says he was kicked in the face. His testimony was credible and the photos show the broken teeth.
He notes that the use of necessary force is permitted when justified. But was it?
The magistrate writes that the intervention of the ECIU team “appears particularly brutal given the circumstances. The inmate was not in crisis and did not pose a threat. He even adds that the way in which the ECIU chose to carry out its intervention helped “to fuel the resistance of Mr. Louis. »
A prudent and diligent corrections officer does not behave that way, the judge rules. There is therefore a fault because there was no justification for the kick.
“You don’t treat a human being that way. »
He therefore condemns the Quebec State to pay the man $15,000 in moral damages and $15,000 in punitive damages.
The decision can of course be appealed.