In a landmark ruling that exposes deep systemic failures within Saint Lucia’s criminal justice system, the High Court has ordered the national government to pay a total of $2.97 million in damages to two men who endured decades of unlawful imprisonment after being deemed unfit to stand trial. Justice Alvin Shiva Pariagsingh, who presided over the case, labeled the rights violations one of the gravest constitutional breaches in the island nation’s history.
Anthony Henry, who was wrongfully detained for roughly 24 years, received $1.25 million in compensatory damages and an additional $100,000 in vindicatory damages. Francis Noel, who spent more than 32 years in unlawful custody, was awarded $1.5 million in compensatory damages and $120,000 in vindicatory damages. The court further ruled that the Attorney General must cover all legal costs, plus an annual 6% statutory interest applied to all outstanding amounts until full payment is completed. Any interim payments already disbursed to the two men can be deducted from the final total award at the Attorney General’s discretion.
The case reached the High Court for a final damages ruling after the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council previously confirmed that the men’s constitutional right to personal liberty had been unlawfully violated. Court documents detail that both men were held under a state-administered framework that ignored statutory and constitutional requirements for people found unfit to plead. Instead of being transferred to appropriate mental health facilities for structured treatment and regular legal reviews, the pair were confined in harsh prison conditions for decades.
Justice Pariagsingh emphasized that the violation was no minor procedural mistake, but a prolonged, systemic failure on the part of the Saint Lucian state. “The claimants were effectively forgotten within the criminal justice system for decades,” the judge wrote, noting that this case is unprecedented in Saint Lucia and falls squarely into the most serious category of constitutional violations.
Evidence presented to the court showed that while Henry and Noel received limited psychiatric care and medication starting around 2003, the support they received fell far short of the legal standard. For most of their detention, there was no dedicated psychiatric facility to treat them, no structured therapeutic programming to address their mental health needs, and no functional system of periodic review to reassess their status. For long stretches of their detention, they were also housed alongside the general prison population, increasing their vulnerability.
In a balanced finding, the judge rejected the claimants’ argument that they deserved full compensation for a complete deprivation of liberty across their entire detention period. The court accepted that due to the severity and persistent nature of both men’s mental health conditions, they would likely have required detention in a secure psychiatric facility for a substantial period even if the state had followed all legal protocols. As a result, the final damage awards were calibrated to reflect the difference between the unlawful prison confinement they experienced and the lawful therapeutic detention that would have been legal under Saint Lucian law.
The separate award of vindicatory damages was intentional: the court ruled that standard compensatory damages alone could not adequately address the profound constitutional significance of the state’s violations. Justice Pariagsingh added that the two men were uniquely vulnerable as a result of being deemed unfit to plead, meaning they depended entirely on state institutions to uphold their rights. “This was not an isolated error, but a sustained failure across the relevant institutions to give effect to fundamental rights,” the judge concluded.