Judge orders trial after State refuses to settle $54M diamond case

May 23, 2018 News

By Feona Morrison

The State has refused to offer settlement to Ronald Khan, who in a writ filed since 2011, claimed that among other things, police wrongfully detained $54M worth in diamonds belonging to him and that the items were never returned.
In light of this, yesterday High Court Judge Fidela Corbin-Lincoln scheduled a trial commencing from August 23, next, and thereon, to resolve the matter.
The diamonds which were recovered from a 1994 robbery investigation are presumed to have vanished from the custody of the police.
According to the writ filed on January 3, 2011 at the High Court in Georgetown and issued by Attorney-at-Law Nigel Hughes, Khan said that police “wrongfully detained” the diamonds after a robbery on his mining camp at Ewang Creek, during 1994.
Khan stated that after he checked and identified his diamonds, police ranks lodged them at the Mahdia Police Station. “Officers of the Guyana Police Force thereafter transported the diamonds to ‘E’ and ‘F’ Division,” the writ states.

Ronald Khan who was absent at the last court hearing made his way to court yesterday morning

Sometime later when Khan requested the return of his diamonds, he was informed that the said diamonds were required as exhibits in the criminal trial of the persons charged with the armed robbery of his mining camp.
The writ said that after the passage of several years and the unsuccessful prosecution of the defendants who over time have either died or escaped, Khan’s lawyer wrote a letter to the then Commissioner of Police requesting the return of the merchandise.
“The Commissioner of Police acknowledged receipt of the said letter but failed to return (Khan’s) property,” the writ added.
At an earlier court hearing (May 07), State Counsel Joan Ann Stuart-Edghill was given until yesterday by the court to report on the location of the diamonds and to disclose the possibility of settlement with Khan.
However, when the matter came up yesterday for report, Solicitor General Kim Kyte, said that attempts, which are still ongoing, to locate the diamonds have been unsuccessful. She reasoned that the incident occurred over a decade ago, and that some persons involved in the case have died.
As such, Kyte stated that the state has no intention of offering a settlement to the plaintiff, but instead, wants the matter to be resolved by way of trial.
For his part, Khan is requesting an order directing the defendant who is listed as the Attorney General and/or the Commissioner of Police to return the diamonds to him.
Alternately, he is seeking an order directing the Commissioner of Police to pay him the sum of $54,000,000 being the value of the “uncut diamonds wrongfully detained by the Guyana Police Force.”
Khan is also seeking damages in excess of $100,000 for the wrongful detention, interest, costs and such further or other order as the court may seem just.
During preliminary submissions yesterday morning, Kyte contended that Khan has to prove that “the stones” were diamonds, and also, its value.
Kyte said, “Assuming but not admitting the stones were diamonds, he (Khan) has to prove its value.”
Referencing Sections Six and Eight of the Limitation Act Chapter 07:02, Kyte is further contending that Khan failed to file claim against the state over the alleged missing diamonds within the period specified in the Act.
According to Section Six of the Limitation Act Chapter 07:02, “Every action and suit for movable property, or upon any contract, bargain, or agreement relating to movable property, or to recover money lent without written acknowledgement or upon any account or book debt, or to recover any salary or the value of any goods sold and delivered, shall be brought within three years next after the cause of action or suit has arisen.”
Further Section Eight states, “Every action and suit for any illegal or excessive levy, injury to property, whether movable or immobile, assault, battery, wounding or false imprisonment, and every other action or suit in which damages may be recovered (save and except for libel or slander) shall be brought within three years next after the cause of action or suit has arisen.”
Advancing further arguments, the Solicitor General said that it is not mandated under the law for police to detain an item (s) to be tendered as an exhibit until the hearing and determination of a criminal matter. Moreover, she argued that certain sections of the law make provisions for photographs of the items to be taken and tendered as exhibits.
She added that even as way back as 1994, it was customary for police ranks to take photographs of items to be tendered in court as exhibits, and thereafter, return the property to its owner.
As such, the Solicitor General submitted that Khan could have filed an action requesting the return of his belongings even as the criminal proceedings were on going and not wait over a decade later to do so, as in this case.
In relation to the trial, three witnesses are expected to testify—two on behalf of the State, and of course, Khan in defence of his claim.
Attorney-at-law Kezia Williams, who appeared on behalf Hughes, and Kyte were given up until June 22 to file witness statements (affidavit). Thereafter, the State will file and serve submissions on the plaintiff as it relates to the issue raised about limitation by July 6. The plaintiff was given until July 20 to respond and the trial commences in August.