Raped female security guard awarded $10 million

A female security guard employed to a prominent security firm who was raped and forced to perform oral sex on her assailant while on night duty has been awarded $10 million in damages plus interest after the Supreme Court found that her handlers “failed to have any system in place that contemplated the safety of a female employee deployed to a location alone at night”.

The woman who was a late replacement for an assigned officer, said the incident occurred around midnight, or shortly after, at the location she described as isolated and lonely. According to the female guard, she screamed when the man, upon breaching the guardhouse where she was, told her he was from Flanker and one of St James’ most wanted men. She said while rummaging through her bag the man told her he would kill her if she screamed again. The woman said he then told her to remove her pants. She said when she replied, “Seriously?” he became angry and asked her if she “wah dead”. She said she did what he demanded as she saw the anger in his face and was scared she was going to die. The security guard said she repeatedly pleaded with him not to kill her.

Her assailant was eventually apprehended and placed before the court for the assault which took place in 2018. The female guard, in subsequently suing her employers for negligence, asserted that the firm had breached its duty to her as an employee. She said the entity failed to provide her with adequate personnel support; failed to give her adequate and appropriate equipment to reduce the risk of injury or enable her to defend herself; failed to give her adequate training in self-defence or other security measures, among other things. She further stated that she suffered post-traumatic stress disorder as a consequence.

In delivering the judgement, Supreme Court Judge Justice Dale Staple said while “money can never fully compensate for being raped or otherwise sexually assaulted”, he was “of the view that an award of $3.5 million is more than appropriate in all the circumstances of the case for the PTSD and $6.5 million for the assault and battery”.

He pointed out – in response to claims made by the attorney for the security firm that the female had received no bruising or lacerations during the assault – that while this was so, the woman “was made to do and to endure violations of her person that are extremely intrusive and traumatic”.

“In my view, that award ought to be increased to take into account the fact that, in this case, the assault was rape — meaning the penis entered the vagina,” Justice Staple declared before describing disturbing details of the act.

“There can be no greater violation than all of what she went through,” he added.

The Supreme Court Judge also noted that the medical report presented provided “sufficient evidence of a sexual encounter”, pointing out that “the absence of bruising, etcetera does not mean that a non-consensual act did not take place”.

Justice Staple, who said he accepted that there was “clear evidence of coercion and forced compliance” pointed out that “not every person sexually assaulted will fight back”.

“What is more, a perpetrator was identified and put before the court. This, as I said earlier, enhances the claimant’s credibility. Further, no evidence has been led to suggest any motive on the part of the claimant to concoct such a story in the first place and then commit to the lie to the extent of going to the defendant’s counsellor right after the incident; taking the prescribed anti-retroviral medication (which I accept she did) for over a year; get herself retested after this period; seek out psychotherapy with an approved psychiatrist; and receiving pharmacotherapy in addition to sessions with a psychologist. In my view, the entirety of the conduct of the claimant was reasonable and in accordance with how a person who was raped would act,” Justice Staple said further.

The security firm in mounting its defence had challenged the woman’s allegation that she was assaulted and suffered the injury contending that they “did not breach their duty to her as an employer, as they provided her with sufficient training; a safe location from which to do her work; and sufficient support staff who were within a short distance from the location at which she was deployed”. Furthermore the firm said she contributed to her own injury.

Justice Staple in rejecting the security firm’s submissions that the location was safe said he had not found this to be the case as “the cameras were not being monitored off-site [and] there was also no evidence that they had checked to ensure that the cameras had been working on the night of the incident”.

Furthermore he said fencing at the property was inadequate, while the guardroom had no locking mechanism. The female guard was also not provided with a panic button but had been given a phone to make contact in the event of an emergency.

“In the absence of credible evidence that the cameras worked and were monitored, that the lights were all working, that the door to the guardhouse had a working locking mechanism and that the fencing was such that it would pose a challenge to intruders, I do not find that the location was a safe one for a lone security guard at night,” Justice Staple declared.

In rejecting the firm’s assertion that she contributed to her own injuries he said their own failures to adequately secure the location and institute a proper emergency response protocol “resulted in the heightened risk of the incident happening to the claimant and left her exposed to the assault without adequate means to protect herself from the harm”. Despite its own policy that guards are to be checked on periodically by a patrol team, Justice Staple said there was no evidence to show that these checks were done on the night in question, representing “another systemic failure”. Furthermore, he said the female guard had called a male supervisor twice to report the presence of males walking by. That supervisor did not turn up on either occasion on which she called him, despite promising to do so.

In the meantime, the female guard, who returned to work in 2019, said she has intrusive memories of the assault, anxiety, low mood, and difficulty sleeping and concentrating, loss of confidence and difficulty feeling safe. The female guard, who claimed her social life has been negatively impacted, said she now finds it difficult to have normal relations with a man and has not had intimate relations since the incident.