Eight years later… Judge awards businessman $5M over diamonds seized by police

Feb 13, 2019 News

---

An eight-year quest for some missing diamonds ended on Monday for businessman Ronald Khan after High Court Judge Fidela Corbin-Lincoln awarded him judgment against the State to the tune of $5M for the minerals that were seized by police ranks following a robbery at his mining camp at Ewang Creek sometime in 1994.
Additionally, the Judge ordered that the State pay Khan the sum of $200,000. In giving reasons for her judgment, the Judge noted that while it was clear Khan suffered personal loss of his property, he produced no evidence to verify the quality of the diamonds, which he claimed were valued some $54M.
The missing diamonds were the subject matter of a civil case filed against the State by Khan who, through his Attorney Nigel Hughes, had requested the return of the wrongfully detained minerals, which according to him, were lodged at the E&F Division of the Police Headquarters, Eve Leary, Georgetown.
According to court action filed on January 3, 2011 by Khan, this matter dates back to 1994 when his mining camp was robbed of the aforementioned diamonds worth $54M, which were later recovered by ranks of the Guyana Police Force and taken to the Mahdia Police Station.
“At the Mahdia Police Station, the plaintiff (Khan) inspected the said diamonds and verified the quantity and the amount with the officers of the Guyana Police Force. After the diamonds were checked and identified by the plaintiff at the Mahdia Station, officers of the Guyana Police Force thereafter transported the said diamonds to the E and F Division of the Guyana Police Force,” the affidavit outlined.
According to the legal document, sometime after Khan requested the return of his diamonds but was told that they were required as exhibits in the criminal trial of the persons charged with the armed robbery committed on the camp.
But despite the passage of several years, the legal document stated that the police were unable to conclude the prosecution of the alleged defendants, as some had escaped and others subsequently died.
It continued, “By a letter dated the 24th day of November 2010, the plaintiff’s attorney wrote to the Commissioner of Police requesting the return of the said diamonds. The Commissioner of Police acknowledged the said letter but failed to return the plaintiff’s property.”

According to Justice Corbin-Lincoln, “I therefore find as an undisputed fact by a letter dated 24 November 2010, Mr. Khan caused a request to be made to the Commissioner of Police for the return of his alleged diamonds. I am satisfied that Mr. Khan made a specific and unconditional demand for the return of the alleged diamonds.”
Though the Judge was of the view that the police had a lawful basis (provided for under the Constitution of Guyana) for retaining the diamonds having regard to the circumstances of the case, the question arose whether there was a lawful reason for the continued retention of the alleged diamonds.
In this regard, Justice Corbin-Lincoln pointed out that the Constitution of Guyana only permits the taking of property for so long only as required for the purposes of examination, investigation or trial, and consequently, does not permit the indefinite retention of property.
Giving a breakdown of the evidence before her, the Judge said that Khan made a request for the return of the alleged diamonds some 16 years after the robbery. It was highlighted by the Judge that the robbery suspects were charged during 1994—the same year Khan said his mining camp was robbed.
She pointed out that there was no evidence by the State that the alleged diamonds were still required to be retained, and that the State showed no lawful reason for the continued retention of the diamonds, after a request was made for its return.
The State had contended that the action filed by Khan was statute-barred, and breached Section Six of the Limitation Act.
That section, which speaks to action for movable property, salary or goods states, “Every action and suit for any movable property, or upon any contract, bargain, or agreement relating to movable property, or to recover money lent without written acknowledgment 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.”
According to the State, since the robbery occurred in 1994, Khan had three years from thereafter to file proceedings. But Justice Corbin-Lincoln held differently.
Referencing cases and extracts from law author, John D. Fleming in The Law of Tort, Justice Corbin-Lincoln held, “I find the matter is not barred by statute, as the tort of detinue was established. Having found that there was a detention, a demand, and they have not been returned in a reasonable time of demand, or at all, and there is no lawful reason for the continued detention of the diamonds, I am satisfied that the tort of detinue be established.”
As mentioned before, Khan filed proceedings against the State in January 2011.
Furthermore, the Judge said she believed Khan’s evidence when he said that the items were indeed diamonds given his decades of experience in the mining industry. Another basis the Judge cited for believing the items were diamonds, is that the police had to have had some surety it was same before instituting criminal charges.
Initially, Khan had asked the court to make an order directing the defendant, who is listed as the Attorney General and/or the Commissioner of Police, to return the diamonds to him.
Alternatively, Khan had requested 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. He had also sought damages in excess of $100,000 for the wrongful detention, interest, costs and such further or other order as the court may seem just.

---

---