In a landmark ruling that holds state institutions accountable for systemic failures to protect a domestic violence survivor, High Court Justice Robin Mohammed has awarded more than $2.5 million in total damages to the estate of Samantha Isaacs, a Trinidad and Tobago woman who was murdered by her former partner after repeated pleas for help went unanswered. Handing down his decision last Friday, the justice ruled that multiple breaches of Isaacs’ constitutional rights — including her fundamental right to life and right to equal protection under the law — by key state bodies, among them the Trinidad and Tobago Police Service (TTPS) and a sitting magistrate, directly contributed to her fatal killing.
The damages award builds on an earlier finding by the same court that the State bears civil liability for Isaacs’ death. Court documents confirm that Isaacs contacted police on multiple occasions to report escalating threats and ongoing physical abuse at the hands of her ex-partner, Kahriym Garcia, but systemic inaction left her with no meaningful protection.
In his full ruling, Justice Mohammed outlined critical failures across two separate state agencies. First, he found that the TTPS ignored clear, growing risks to Isaacs’ life: officers failed to conduct proper investigations into her formal complaints, never moved forward with criminal prosecution of her abuser, and took no reasonable precautionary steps to keep her safe. Even after the Police Complaints Authority (PCA) formally recommended disciplinary action against one officer who mishandled Isaacs’ report, no punitive or corrective action was ever implemented, compounding the violation of her constitutional rights. Second, the justice ruled that a local magistrate acted both prematurely and arbitrarily when dismissing Isaacs’ application for a domestic violence protection order. The magistrate never completed a thorough assessment of the lethal danger Isaacs faced, nor did they consider how an unfavorable ruling would impact Isaacs and her young son, Kaiden Garcia. Not long after the protection order was rejected, Isaacs was murdered by Garcia.
Breaking down the damages award, Justice Mohammed allocated specific sums to address different harms stemming from the state’s failures. He granted $960,000 to compensate for the lifetime of lost earnings Isaacs would have collected if she had survived. A further $450,000 covers the severe pain, suffering, and non-financial harm Isaacs endured in the period leading up to her death, including additional aggravated damages for the deliberate indifference to her plight. Tot Lampkin, Isaacs’ mother, and Kaiden Garcia received a combined $600,000 for the non-pecuniary harm they suffered as a result of the violation of their constitutional right to respect for family life. To underscore the severity of the constitutional breaches and deter future misconduct by state authorities, the court also awarded $500,000 in vindicatory damages.
In addition to the base damages, the court ordered $131,609.58 in prejudgment interest, calculated at an annual rate of 2.5% on all non-pecuniary damages. It also ruled that a 5% annual post-judgment interest rate will apply to all outstanding sums until the award is fully paid, and ordered the State to cover all of Lampkin’s legal fees incurred during the proceedings.
In his concluding remarks, Justice Mohammed described the collective response of state agencies to Isaacs’ repeated calls for help as “institutional inertia” that ignored multiple clear warning signs of impending violence. He emphasized that standard compensatory damages are not enough to reflect the gravity of violating a person’s fundamental right to life. Vindicatory damages, he explained, serve a critical public purpose: they formalize widespread public condemnation of constitutional violations, reaffirm that fundamental rights are non-negotiable for all citizens, and create a strong deterrent to prevent similar lethal failures by state authorities in the future.