Court rejects claim over suicide in Police office

A LACK of evidence about the circumstances in which a murder suspect committed suicide while in Police custody three years ago prompted the High Court to this week dismiss a N$166 000 damages claim against the Minister of Safety and Security.

In a judgement delivered on Monday, Judge President Petrus Damaseb ruled that the Minister does not have to present evidence to the court to answer to evidence that had been placed before the court in an attempt to prove a damages claim that the mother of the late murder suspect Sem Nepunda and the mother of Nepunda’s 12-year-old son had instituted against the Minister. The short reason for the Judge President’s ruling is that he found that there was no admissible evidence before him to show that Police officers who were responsible for detaining Nepunda had breached a duty of care towards Nepunda, or that they should have foreseen that there was a risk that he could kill himself while in custody.Nepunda committed suicide in an office of the Serious Crime Unit on January 29 2004, where he was being interrogated after he had been arrested on a charge of murder.He was 31 years old.It was alleged that he had murdered his girlfriend, Mathilda Agnes Immanuel.According to the Police, Nepunda shot himself with his own pistol.The shooting took place when a Police officer who was questioning him left the office where he was being interrogated.Nepunda’s firearm was in a cupboard – referred to as a wardrobe in the trial before the Judge President – in the office, where he apparently found it before he turned the gun on himself.Much of this information however did not come out clearly in court during the hearing on the damages claim against the Minister.NOT SUICIDAL Nepunda’s 72-year-old mother, Lusia Nepunda, sued the Minister for N$106 382.On behalf of Nepunda’s son, the boy’s mother, Fransina Yoleni Shaanika, sued the Minister for N$60 012.Both claims were for damages that Mrs Nepunda and Nepunda’s son were alleged to have suffered because Nepunda’s death robbed them of the man who was maintaining and supporting them.Shaanika and Mrs Nepunda claimed that the Police had owed a duty of care to Nepunda, and that the Police were supposed to ensure that he was kept free from harm while he was in their care.By leaving a firearm in close proximity to him, it was claimed, the Police breached that duty of care, and should have foreseen that this might have resulted in harm to Nepunda.The Minister admitted that the Police owed a general duty of care to persons in their custody, but stated further that the Police officers involved in detaining Nepunda were not aware that he was a suicide risk and could not have foreseen the possibility that he would commit suicide.”A remarkable feature of the present case is the dearth of particularity (of any kind) about the surrounding circumstances of the deceased’s suicide,” the Judge President commented in his judgement.He stated further: “All we know is that Sem Nepunda killed himself with a firearm in Police custody while being interrogated by the Police on suspicion of murder.For example: We do not know whose firearm it was.We know not where he was being interrogated and where the ‘wardrobe’ was in relation to where the interrogation was taking place.We have no idea how long he was in detention when he took his own life or what impact the length of detention may have had on him.Where were the Police when he shot himself? There is absolutely nothing about the circumstances surrounding the death of the person in connection with which he was being interrogated: Was she his girlfriend or a complete stranger? Yet, all these are necessary for the Court to make an assessment whether or not it was reasonable for the (Minister’s) employees to foresee the harm occurring.The information peculiarly within the knowledge of the police could have been requested and, if denied, compelled.”In a claim like this one, he stated, it is essential to allege and at least lead evidence that the Police knew or ought to have known that the person who committed suicide whilst in their care was a suicide risk.In this case, though, nothing was proven on this score, the court found.Legal Assistance Centre lawyers Lynita Conradie and Toni Hancox represented Shaanika and Mrs Nepunda in the case.Deputy Government Attorney Nixon Marcus represented the Minister.The short reason for the Judge President’s ruling is that he found that there was no admissible evidence before him to show that Police officers who were responsible for detaining Nepunda had breached a duty of care towards Nepunda, or that they should have foreseen that there was a risk that he could kill himself while in custody.Nepunda committed suicide in an office of the Serious Crime Unit on January 29 2004, where he was being interrogated after he had been arrested on a charge of murder.He was 31 years old.It was alleged that he had murdered his girlfriend, Mathilda Agnes Immanuel.According to the Police, Nepunda shot himself with his own pistol.The shooting took place when a Police officer who was questioning him left the office where he was being interrogated.Nepunda’s firearm was in a cupboard – referred to as a wardrobe in the trial before the Judge President – in the office, where he apparently found it before he turned the gun on himself.Much of this information however did not come out clearly in court during the hearing on the damages claim against the Minister.NOT SUICIDAL Nepunda’s 72-year-old mother, Lusia Nepunda, sued the Minister for N$106 382.On behalf of Nepunda’s son, the boy’s mother, Fransina Yoleni Shaanika, sued the Minister for N$60 012.Both claims were for damages that Mrs Nepunda and Nepunda’s son were alleged to have suffered because Nepunda’s death robbed them of the man who was maintaining and supporting them.Shaanika and Mrs Nepunda claimed that the Police had owed a duty of care to Nepunda, and that the Police were supposed to ensure that he was kept free from harm while he was in their care.By leaving a firearm in close proximity to him, it was claimed, the Police breached that duty of care, and should have foreseen that this might have resulted in harm to Nepunda.The Minister admitted that the Police owed a general duty of care to persons in their custody, but stated further that the Police officers involved in detaining Nepunda were not aware that he was a suicide risk and could not have foreseen the possibility that he would commit suicide.”A remarkable feature of the present case is the dearth of particularity (of any kind) about the surrounding circumstances of the deceased’s suicide,” the Judge President commented in his judgement.He stated further: “All we know is that Sem Nepunda killed himself with a firearm in Police custody while being interrogated by the Police on suspicion of murder.For example: We do not know whose firearm it was.We know not where he was being interrogated and where the ‘wardrobe’ was in relation to where the interrogation was taking place.We have no idea how long he was in detention when he took his own life or what impact the length of detention may have had on him.Where were the Police when he shot himself? There is absolutely nothing about the circumstances surrounding the death of the person in connection with which he was being interrogated: Was she his girlfriend or a complete stranger? Yet, all these are necessary for the Court to make an assessment whether or not it was reasonable for the (Minister’s) employees to foresee the harm occurring.The information peculiarly within the knowledge of the police could have been requested and, if denied, compelled.”In a claim like this one, he stated, it is essential to allege and at least lead evidence that the Police knew or ought to have known that the person who committed suicide whilst in their care was a suicide risk.In this case, though, nothing was proven on this score, the court found.Legal Assistance Centre lawyers Lynita Conradie and Toni Hancox represented Shaanika and Mrs Nepunda in the case.Deputy Government Attorney Nixon Marcus represented the Minister.