Man in case of mistaken identity loses damages claim

A Gqeberha man who launched a civil claim against the police and the national prosecuting authority for damages from an arrest on drug dealing charges lost his appeal in the high court after his claim had earlier been dismissed by the magistrate’s court.

Robert Andrew Groves, of Bethelsdorp, brought the claim after the charges against him were withdrawn by the state.

He claimed he was arrested without a warrant and that he suffered false and malicious prosecution.

Groves was arrested just before 2am on September 26 2016 at his house in Sapphire Street and charged with dealing in drugs.

It was alleged that he sold mandrax and tik to an undercover police officer who had captured the alleged transaction on a spy camera.

He was detained at Mount Road police station and appeared in the Gqeberha magistrate’s court on September 28.

His case was postponed to October 3 2016 to allow the state to obtain information relating to possible previous arrests or warrants of arrest.

The matter was again postponed to October 6 when he was released on R2,000 bail.

The charge against him was withdrawn on March 30 2018 after it became apparent that video footage of the alleged drug transaction did not clearly identify Groves as the person who had sold drugs to the undercover police officer.

In his judgment, Makhanda high court judge Sunil Rugunanan found that the criminal matter was a case of mistaken identity and that Groves’s claims of wrongful and unlawful arrest, as well as wrongful, false and malicious prosecution, were unfounded.

The civil claim was first heard in the city’s magistrate’s court, with the court rejecting Groves’s claims as there was no evidence supporting them.

Groves then took the matter on appeal, with Rugunanan dismissing it last week.

Rugunanan found that there was evidence to prove that a warrant had been issued and that the police had acted in the correct manner at the time of the arrest.

Rugunanan further rubbished Groves’s claims that he was falsely and maliciously prosecuted, finding that the state initially was under the impression that there was a prima facie case against him due to the video footage and a statement by the undercover police officer identifying him as the man who sold him the drugs.

It later emerged that the footage was not clear enough to determine Groves’s identity and that the statement by the undercover officer identifying Groves was inaccurate as he had mistaken Groves for his brother, who has similar facial features.