MANLEY V COMMISSIONER OF POLICE FOR THE METROPOLIS [2006] EWCA Civ 879
FACTS:-
The Claimant alleged assault, false imprisonment and malicious prosecution against the police. The police had arrested him in the early hours of Xmas morning, thinking erroneously that he was the driver of a car that had been speeding. He was struck on the head with a police baton, restrained on the ground and sprayed in the face with CS gas, when there was no need. He was then taken to the police station. The police officers alleged that the Claimant had threatened to kill them and generally resisted arrest. He was charged with dangerous driving and two threats to kill, and acquitted at trial.
He brought an action and a jury awarded £1,000 for assault, £7,500 for false imprisonment and £1500 for malicious prosecution but no exemplary or aggravated damages. The Claimant appealed.
JUDGMENT:-
Lord Justice Waller said that the jury had found that police officers had fabricated serious allegations and told lies in the criminal and civil proceedings. However the Claimant was a man with a serious criminal record.
Waller LJ considered the relevant caselaw:-
Waller LJ made the following basic points.
Firstly in Thompson guideline figures had been given for awards, but the court recognized that they were applicable to what it termed a straightforward case and that they were not to be used in a mechanistic manner. The court was not concerned in identifying the appropriate bracket in a case where the Claimant was of bad character or in guiding judges as to the effect of bad character on awards of basic damages.
Secondly where the police officers were employees of the Defendant, exemplary damages were unlikely to have a role.
Thirdly aggravated damages should be awarded if the aggravating features would result in the Claimant not receiving sufficient compensation for his injury.
In the case of Clark, the Court of Appeal had said that the bad character of the Claimant was a factor which made for a “discount” in awarding damages for malicious prosecution.
Waller LJ said that all cases were different but where as in the present case, the malicious prosecution was for the very serious offence of threatening to kill a police officer, a man with a criminal record was entitled to be compensated for the greater risk of the malicious prosecution succeeding and the risk that he would get a longer prison sentence as a result of it succeeding, all of which would cause stress and anxiety.
The trial judge in this case had not given sufficient direction to the jury to enable them to decide on the level of compensation.
In relation to aggravated damages, Waller LJ said that any reasonable jury should have appreciated that a failure to award something other than a substantial sum for aggravated damages would send out an entirely wrong message to the Defendant. The police officers had humiliated the Claimant during the incident, they behaved in a high handed, insulting, malicious and oppressive manner and lies were told during the course of the criminal prosecution and the criminal and civil trials. No disciplinary proceedings had resulted.
Waller LJ would increase the jury’s award for malicious prosecution from £1,500 to £4,000 and award £10,000 by way of aggravated damages.
Lord Justice Moses and Lord Justice Richards agreed.
FACTS:-
The Claimant alleged assault, false imprisonment and malicious prosecution against the police. The police had arrested him in the early hours of Xmas morning, thinking erroneously that he was the driver of a car that had been speeding. He was struck on the head with a police baton, restrained on the ground and sprayed in the face with CS gas, when there was no need. He was then taken to the police station. The police officers alleged that the Claimant had threatened to kill them and generally resisted arrest. He was charged with dangerous driving and two threats to kill, and acquitted at trial.
He brought an action and a jury awarded £1,000 for assault, £7,500 for false imprisonment and £1500 for malicious prosecution but no exemplary or aggravated damages. The Claimant appealed.
JUDGMENT:-
Lord Justice Waller said that the jury had found that police officers had fabricated serious allegations and told lies in the criminal and civil proceedings. However the Claimant was a man with a serious criminal record.
Waller LJ considered the relevant caselaw:-
- Thompson v Commission of the Police [1997] 2 All ER 762
- Clark v Chief Constable of Cleveland Police [1999] EWCA Civ 1357
Waller LJ made the following basic points.
Firstly in Thompson guideline figures had been given for awards, but the court recognized that they were applicable to what it termed a straightforward case and that they were not to be used in a mechanistic manner. The court was not concerned in identifying the appropriate bracket in a case where the Claimant was of bad character or in guiding judges as to the effect of bad character on awards of basic damages.
Secondly where the police officers were employees of the Defendant, exemplary damages were unlikely to have a role.
Thirdly aggravated damages should be awarded if the aggravating features would result in the Claimant not receiving sufficient compensation for his injury.
In the case of Clark, the Court of Appeal had said that the bad character of the Claimant was a factor which made for a “discount” in awarding damages for malicious prosecution.
Waller LJ said that all cases were different but where as in the present case, the malicious prosecution was for the very serious offence of threatening to kill a police officer, a man with a criminal record was entitled to be compensated for the greater risk of the malicious prosecution succeeding and the risk that he would get a longer prison sentence as a result of it succeeding, all of which would cause stress and anxiety.
The trial judge in this case had not given sufficient direction to the jury to enable them to decide on the level of compensation.
In relation to aggravated damages, Waller LJ said that any reasonable jury should have appreciated that a failure to award something other than a substantial sum for aggravated damages would send out an entirely wrong message to the Defendant. The police officers had humiliated the Claimant during the incident, they behaved in a high handed, insulting, malicious and oppressive manner and lies were told during the course of the criminal prosecution and the criminal and civil trials. No disciplinary proceedings had resulted.
Waller LJ would increase the jury’s award for malicious prosecution from £1,500 to £4,000 and award £10,000 by way of aggravated damages.
Lord Justice Moses and Lord Justice Richards agreed.