Couple lose Covid arrest lawsuit against police ministry

A couple who sued police over their arrest for violating Covid-19 restrictions by entering the beach has lost their case after failing to prove the unlawfulness of their arrests.

The Western Cape High Court dismissed all claims brought by the couple, ruling that they failed to establish that their arrest, detention, prosecution and alleged violation of their constitutional rights by police during the coronavirus lockdown were unlawful. They also claimed the police exposed them to the virus by arresting them.

The legal battle stems from an incident on May 4 2020, when the couple entered Muizenberg Beach during Level 4 lockdown restrictions after their 21-month-old daughter ran onto the sand.

At the time, beaches were prohibited areas under the Disaster Management Act regulations introduced to curb the spread of Covid-19.

The couple maintained throughout the trial that they had only stepped onto the beach briefly to retrieve their toddler after she unexpectedly ran off the boardwalk. They claimed police arrested them despite knowing why they had entered the beach.

They further alleged that officers detained them and their young daughter at Muizenberg police station, exposed them to possible Covid-19 infection by failing to follow health protocols and intimidated them throughout the ordeal.

The couple also claimed the incident left them traumatised, damaged their relationship and ultimately led them to leave South Africa for the Czech Republic, where the mother now lives with their daughter.

They sued the state for damages exceeding R1m, including compensation for alleged psychological trauma, constitutional rights violations, legal costs and future medical expenses.

However, judge Mas-udah Pangarker found that the couple failed to prove several key aspects of their case.

The court found numerous contradictions between the couple’s evidence, their court papers, earlier statements and social media posts.

Among the inconsistencies highlighted by the judge were conflicting versions about how long they were detained, whether there were other detainees in the police van and how far their daughter had moved onto the beach.

Their claims that police repeatedly harassed them after the arrest by driving past their home were also not substantiated.

The court noted that although the criminal charges against the couple were later withdrawn by the prosecutor, that alone did not prove that the police had acted maliciously or unlawfully when they arrested them.

Pangarker accepted that police officers were operating under unprecedented circumstances during the height of the Covid-19 pandemic and were legally required to enforce lockdown regulations.

The court found that the plaintiffs failed to prove that the police acted with malice or without reasonable grounds.

It also rejected claims that the arrest and subsequent prosecution amounted to a breach of their constitutional rights to dignity, freedom and privacy.

On the issue of damages, the court found there was insufficient evidence linking the alleged psychological injuries directly to the incident.

The couple had claimed they suffered anxiety, post-traumatic stress and emotional harm that eventually contributed to the breakdown of their relationship.

The judge, however, found that expert medical evidence supporting those claims was lacking.

The court also rejected claims for future medical expenses and constitutional damages.

During the trial, Brig Vassie Naidoo, who arrested the couple, testified that police had been conducting high-visibility patrols after receiving complaints that members of the public were ignoring lockdown rules by going onto the beach.

He maintained that he found the couple sitting and playing with their child on the beach, about 200m from the boardwalk, and denied their version that they had entered the beach only to retrieve their daughter.

Though the judge acknowledged the extraordinary circumstances created by the Covid-19 pandemic, the court ultimately ruled that the plaintiffs had failed to discharge the burden of proving that the police acted unlawfully.

“The plaintiffs’ claims are dismissed with costs,” Judge Pangarker ordered.

Sowetan