VARIOUS CLAIMANTS V LEICESTERSHIRE COUNTY COUNCIL UNREPORTED 2nd APRIL 1996 MR JUSTICE POTTS
FACTS:-
The case arose out of the activities of Frank Beck, a former sergeant of Marines with a qualification in social work. He was officer in charge of the Defendants’ children’s homes in Leicestershire as follows:-
In 1989, one of the Claimants, GPH disclosed to her social worker her experiences whilst in Beck’s charge. The police undertook an investigation and Beck was arrested together with three of his subordinate officers. In 1990, Beck was found guilty on 17 counts involving sexual and physical assault of those in his charge and was sentenced to life in prison, where he died. One of his officers died and the other two were convicted on lesser offences. There was also an enquiry by Mr Andrew Kirkwood QC.
Civil claims were brought by a number of Claimants. The Defendant initially denied liability but one week into the trial (which began on the 22nd January 1996) they made substantial concessions and limitation was conceded in their final submissions. During the course of the trial some of the claims were settled.
Mr Justice Potts dealt in his judgment with two claims, DLB and JL.
DLB was born on the 25th February 1965 and was admitted into care on a voluntary basis on the 25th November 1969 because of her parents’ inability to cope. She was then removed from care by her mother and a place of safety order was obtained on the 16th September 1970. She was admitted to the Beeches Children’s Home and remained there until 1st June 1971 when she was transferred to a children’s home at Countersthorpe. On the 27th December 1972, she was moved to Dunblane Avenue Children’s Home, Rushey Mead. She remained there until she returned home in December 1974. She then lived with her parents until November 1979 when she was admitted to Westcotes Children’s Home and then on the 12th November 1979 to Layton House Children’s Home. On the 27th June 1980, she was placed at Ratcliffe Road, where she remained for approximately two years.
At Ratcliffe Road, DLB described an abusive and humiliating regime. She was attended and mainly bathed by male members of staff, required to use baby bottles, her food was cut up and fed to her by staff and she was treated like a child, being encouraged to play with toys. She was constantly verbally abused, frequently assaulted and had reduced contact with her family. She was also incarcerated in a side room for periods varying from a few hours to a few days. On one occasion she was forcibly stripped by three members of staff, who examined and touched her body. Within days of entering Ratcliffe Road, she began to self mutilate.
After her discharge from Ratcliffe Road at the age of 17 ½. the Claimant met the father of her only child and became pregnant by him. That relationship ended after the birth of her child in 1984 and she then lived with another inmate of Ratcliffe Road. This relationship was extremely violent. In 1988 she began a friendship with her present co-habitee. She was also convicted of shoplifting and sentenced to four and a half months’ imprisonment.
Her main complaints were depression, self mutilation, use and abuse of tranquillizers and alcohol, problems with physical contact, controlling her anger and showing affection. Evidence was given on her behalf by a psychologist and two psychiatrists. The Defendant called a child and adolescent psychiatrist. All these expert witnesses agreed that she had been damaged by the treatment to which she was subjected at Ratcliffe Road. However thereafter there were differences of opinion. She had had a very troubled childhood prior to the abuse. Her mother suffered from mental illness, drank to excess and hit her children.
JL was born in October 1959, the youngest of six children. Her father left home before she was born. Her childhood was disturbed. She was frequently struck by her mother and she was expelled from school because of her disruptive and dishonest behaviour. She was referred to a psychiatrist at the age of 8 and admitted to a psychiatric unit at the age of 9. In May 1974, she assaulted another girl with a pair of scissors and pleaded guilty to two charges of arson. In June 1974 she was admitted to a children’s home. She was increasingly disruptive and in September 1974 she was admitted to an adult psychiatric hospital from which she was discharged in March 1975. She was moved to Ratcliffe Road Children’s Home in March 1975 at the age of 15 years five months, she remained there until August 1978. She was actually kept at Ratcliffe Road by Frank Beck after her care order had expired.
Whilst at Ratcliffe Road, she was raped and buggered by Frank Beck on one occasion, and then raped by him on a number of other occasions. She was also subjected to regression therapy, as well as being physically and indecently assaulted by other members of staff, who in particular would jump on her injured ankle.
Following her discharge from Ratcliffe Road, she overdosed on paracetamol and was taken to hospital. She then began to abuse alcohol and drugs. She went to live with her mother but did not get on with her. She had a termination and in February 1980 she was admitted to Rauceby Hospital, Sleaford where she remained until January 1982. On release she went back to abusing drink and drugs. She also obtained work as a packer in a seafood factory, but had to give this up due to medical problems with her stomach. Between 1984 and 1986 she attended Boston College. She obtained a Diploma at the end of her first year but did not complete the second year course. She was still drinking to excess. She then formed a relationship with a woman for some two years, but when this broke down she went back to drinking and self mutilation. In 1987 she worked as an onion packer for some 13 months and then similar work with two other employers. In 1989 she began to live with her present companion and by May 1990, they had obtained a mortgage to buy a house together. In May 1990 she gave a statement to the police about Ratcliffe Road. This had caused great difficulties in her relationship with her companion.
HELD:-
DLB
Justice Potts examined the psychiatric evidence and history of DLB. The Defendant accepted that the Claimant was subjected to abuse at Ratcliffe Road, but they also submitted that it was likely, if not inevitable that this Claimant would have had problems in any event, and that it was artificial and unrealistic to suggest that, even with proper care, she would have emerged into adulthood unscathed, given the pre-existing disturbance. Their psychiatrist said that the assessment of causation was a matter of degree and they accepted that it was for the court to weigh the balance.
Justice Potts said that he had heard the evidence of the other Claimants in this case. He was abundantly satisfied that in reaching his conclusions, the psychiatrist seriously underestimated the extent and effect of the Ratcliffe Road regime upon DLB.
Justice Potts saw no advantage in investigating the differences between the experts on the appropriate label for the Claimant’s condition. The most serious of these were her proclivity to self harm. Justice Potts accepted the Claimant’s medical expert’s evidence to the effect that the Claimant’s self mutilation by cutting was the direct consequence of her abuse at Ratcliffe Road. One of the Claimant’s experts, Dr Trevor Friedman felt that treatment would improve the Claimant’s prognosis. However she would always be distressed by her experiences.
Justice Potts then considered the issue of damages. There were three heads:-
Justice Potts said that the correct approach was to concentrate on the duration of the exposure to the regime at Ratcliffe Road, the post-Ratcliffe Road/pretrial duration of pain, suffering and disability and future pain and suffering and disability which would continue notwithstanding therapy.
Justice Potts was referred to the Judicial Studies Board Guidelines, in particular the Chapter headed “Psychiatric Damage” and a transcript of the judgment in Godwin v Uzoigwe 16th June 1992, CA. In this case a girl aged 16 – 18 was some two and a half years held in the Defendant’s house as a slave, required to work very long hours and kept a virtual prisoner. She was awarded £25,000 and this included a compensatory element of aggravated damages. The Court of Appeal substituted an award of £20,000. Justice Potts had not been referred to any case in the books on all fours with the present. The Claimant was 15 ½ when admitted to Ratcliffe Road and 17 ½ when she left. The “treatment” there had been calculated to make her dependent on her abusers. Her enjoyment of life had been substantially ruined, her self mutilation indicated the severity of her suffering and she would suffered the consequences of the abuse for the rest of her days. The award for pain and suffering would be £50,000.
There was no specific evidence in relation to handicap on the open labour market and no figures placed before Justice Potts. However he took the view that he was entitled to have regard to the figures for average earnings for females (which had been put in JL’s case). An appropriate sum would be for past, present and future handicap £10,000.
In relation to therapy, the sum claimed and supported by Dr Trevor Friedman was £21,450. Some reduction would be made to this figure for accelerated payment, and so £20,000 would be awarded.
Justice Potts considered whether there was any overlap between the awards. In his view, there was not and he would award a total sum of £80,000.
JL
The Defendants had pointed to inconsistencies in the Claimant’s account of events. Justice Potts said that Frank Beck had been convicted of buggering and raping her, and one of his officers, Jaynes had been convicted of assaulting her and causing her actual bodily harm. However there were unsatisfactory aspects in her evidence, for which reason Justice Potts had approached her evidence with caution. A care worker, Sue Morton gave evidence and she confirmed the way in which Frank Beck did not like children talking to the police and social workers.
Justice Potts found that the Claimant had been raped on many occasions, and buggered on one occasion. She was subjected to indecent assaults by Beck and other male members of the staff. She was also physically assaulted on numerous occasions. The first incident of rape (when she was also buggered) had occurred at a time when she was a virgin, and thereafter she frequently suffered from vaginal infections and discharges. Beck also required her to fellate him.
The Claimant had said that on one occasion she was raped by Beck and two of his officers, Jaynes and Fiddiman. However this evidence was unreliable and Justice Potts said this incident was not proved to the required standard.
Jaynes and Fiddiman also used repeated violence on the Claimant’s right ankle. The Claimant had had this ankle X rayed in 1995 and a consultant rheumatologist had said that there was a history of trauma to the right ankle and foot in the past. A consultant immunologist, who had treated the Claimant who said that she was suffering from Reflex Sympathetic Dystrophy, a condition characterized by pain and swelling, usually involving a whole hand or foot. This could be brought on by stress. The Defendant’s expert, a consultant neurologist had said that emotional or psychological stress could not cause or trigger this condition, although he accepted that it could aggravate the symptoms He also said that the condition of the Claimant’s right foot was due to ischaemic changes caused by years of heavy smoking.
Justice Potts said that there was no contemporaneous evidence to support the injury to the ankle. Although he held that violence had been done to this part of the Claimant’s body, it was not as repeated as she said. There was also some doubt about the evidence the Claimant had given about her right foot. Justice Potts said that he was satisfied that the Claimant had not deliberately or consciously misled the court when she gave evidence concerning the condition of her right foot and ankle from 1995 onwards. He concluded that the present condition of the Claimant’s right foot was due to Reflex Sympathetic Dystrophy. However that condition was not brought about by the treatment to which the Claimant had been subjected at Ratcliffe Road. He was unpersuaded that the emotional and psychological stress to which the Claimant was subjected between 1990 and 1995 could have been triggered or caused by the Claimant’s present condition.
In relation to causation, there was an issue as to whether the Claimant’s problems were caused by her pre care experiences or her experiences at Ratcliffe Road. Justice Potts considered the various opinions of the medical experts. His view was that the majority of the Claimant’s present psychological difficulties were due to her experiences at Ratcliffe Road.
There was also some dispute between the medical experts as to the Claimant’s diagnosis. However the Claimant’s present symptoms, as opposed to the label to attached to them, were not in issue. These included deliberate self-harm, including both cutting and overdosing, severe depression, abuse of alcohol and drugs, suicidal ideas, non-existent feelings of self-esteem and self-worth. By 1990 she was in a stable relationship and had stopped abusing drugs and alcohol. However since giving evidence at Beck’s trial, the Claimant’s mental state had deteriorated.
Mr Justice Potts then considered the issue of damages:-
In relation to pain, suffering and loss of amenity, there was no case on all fours with the present. Justice Potts had been referred to Kemp and Kemp together with the Judicial Studies Board Guidelines for the Assessment of Damages in Personal Injury cases.
The Defendants had referred to Re G, Kemp and Kemp C4/100 a decision of the Criminal Injuries Compensation Board. A girl suffered very serious sexual abuse in a care home between the ages of 15 and 19. She became a psychiatric in patient and the prognosis was guarded. The CICB awarded her £50,000 general damages together with £50,000 for loss earning capacity. The Claimant’s counsel had referred to Griffiths v Williams, 21st November 1995 CA where a jury had awarded the Claimant £50,000 to compensate her for one act of rape. This was appealed and reference was made to the case of W v Meah (1986) 1 AER 935. The Court of Appeal said that it was quite impossible to say that the figure of £50,000 was out of all proportion to the circumstances of the case. Justice Potts said that if the Lord Justice Rose (one of appeal judges) had made his own award, he might have awarded £40,000.
In relation to Re G Justice Potts had no information as to how that decision was arrived at. He had heard the Claimant give evidence over many days, and the way in which the extent of the abuse was supported by other witnesses. He derived little assistance from the CICB case, but he felt that the award in that case was too low. Furthermore the award of general damages in Griffiths (updated to today’s date at £53,520) was wholly inadequate. As Rose LJ had pointed out in Griffiths the circumstances and consequences of rape place it in a different category from personal injury cases in general. He would award £80,000 under this head of claim.
In relation to past loss of earnings capacity, the Claimant’s case was that between 1978 and April 1995 she lost work as a result of the condition described above. He had been supplied with detail of what the Claimant would have earned over the whole of the relevant period had she been in work as a supervisor or in middle management. He had also been supplied with details of the Claimant’s potential earnings in manual work over the relevant period. Justice Potts was unable to accept that the Claimant would have found work at a supervisory or middle management level. Therefore he had employed manual work figures and a broad brush approach. He would award £60,000 for the entire period. That figure took into account earnings received during the period as well as benefits.
However a discount would be applied to that figure. Justice Potts could not overlook her pre-existing problems nor could he ignore the effect of accidents and incidents unrelated to the claim for capacity to work. During the period in question, there had also been an economic recession. Justice Potts would award £40,000.
In relation to therapy, the Claimant had expressed interest in taking up therapy. There was some difference in opinion between the medical experts on this point. The total sum claimed was £28,950 but this should be scaled down to reflect accelerated payment, to £25,000.
Justice Potts did not feel that there was any overlap between the heads of damage. The total award for JL would be £145,000.
Interest would be awarded on general damages from the date of service to the writ.
In relation to past loss of earning capacity, Justice Potts had indicated a figure of £10,000 for loss of handicap in the job market for DLB. However some of that figure related to future loss and some to past loss. Justice Potts said that he would apportion the loss between past and future, with one third to the past and two thirds to the future. Interest would be calculated therefore on one third of £10,000 at 2% from the date of service of the writ.
JL’s loss of earnings capacity was all in the past and stopped in April 1995. Interest would be awarded at 2% on the pain suffering and loss of amenity of £80,000 from the date of service of the writ and on the whole of the loss of earnings capacity claim in the sum of £40,000.
There was an issue in relation to the fact that the Defendant’s solicitors had paid in the sums of £40,000 in December 1995 and a further £140,000 on or after the 20th March 1996 in respect of JL’s claim. The second amount had actually been paid in after the conclusion of the submissions and before judgment. That amount exceeded the damages awarded by the court. Justice Potts was not prepared to grant the Defendant its costs after the 20th March 1996.
However there was then the issue of the Claimant’s costs subsequent to the 20th March 1996. Justice Potts was not prepared to make an order against the Defendant in the Claimant’s case.
There was also an issue in relation to generic costs. Justice Potts indicated that the Claimants would be entitled to generic costs up to the date of admissions made by the Defendant and thereafter generic costs reasonably incurred for the continuance of the trial.
FACTS:-
The case arose out of the activities of Frank Beck, a former sergeant of Marines with a qualification in social work. He was officer in charge of the Defendants’ children’s homes in Leicestershire as follows:-
- The Poplars Children’s Home, Market Harborough, 1973 to 1975
- Ratcliffe Road Children’s Home, Leicester, 1975 – 1978
- The Beeches Children’s Home, Leicester Forest East 1978 – 1986
- Temporarily in charge of Rose Hill Children’s Home, Market Harborough for ten weeks in 1978
In 1989, one of the Claimants, GPH disclosed to her social worker her experiences whilst in Beck’s charge. The police undertook an investigation and Beck was arrested together with three of his subordinate officers. In 1990, Beck was found guilty on 17 counts involving sexual and physical assault of those in his charge and was sentenced to life in prison, where he died. One of his officers died and the other two were convicted on lesser offences. There was also an enquiry by Mr Andrew Kirkwood QC.
Civil claims were brought by a number of Claimants. The Defendant initially denied liability but one week into the trial (which began on the 22nd January 1996) they made substantial concessions and limitation was conceded in their final submissions. During the course of the trial some of the claims were settled.
Mr Justice Potts dealt in his judgment with two claims, DLB and JL.
DLB was born on the 25th February 1965 and was admitted into care on a voluntary basis on the 25th November 1969 because of her parents’ inability to cope. She was then removed from care by her mother and a place of safety order was obtained on the 16th September 1970. She was admitted to the Beeches Children’s Home and remained there until 1st June 1971 when she was transferred to a children’s home at Countersthorpe. On the 27th December 1972, she was moved to Dunblane Avenue Children’s Home, Rushey Mead. She remained there until she returned home in December 1974. She then lived with her parents until November 1979 when she was admitted to Westcotes Children’s Home and then on the 12th November 1979 to Layton House Children’s Home. On the 27th June 1980, she was placed at Ratcliffe Road, where she remained for approximately two years.
At Ratcliffe Road, DLB described an abusive and humiliating regime. She was attended and mainly bathed by male members of staff, required to use baby bottles, her food was cut up and fed to her by staff and she was treated like a child, being encouraged to play with toys. She was constantly verbally abused, frequently assaulted and had reduced contact with her family. She was also incarcerated in a side room for periods varying from a few hours to a few days. On one occasion she was forcibly stripped by three members of staff, who examined and touched her body. Within days of entering Ratcliffe Road, she began to self mutilate.
After her discharge from Ratcliffe Road at the age of 17 ½. the Claimant met the father of her only child and became pregnant by him. That relationship ended after the birth of her child in 1984 and she then lived with another inmate of Ratcliffe Road. This relationship was extremely violent. In 1988 she began a friendship with her present co-habitee. She was also convicted of shoplifting and sentenced to four and a half months’ imprisonment.
Her main complaints were depression, self mutilation, use and abuse of tranquillizers and alcohol, problems with physical contact, controlling her anger and showing affection. Evidence was given on her behalf by a psychologist and two psychiatrists. The Defendant called a child and adolescent psychiatrist. All these expert witnesses agreed that she had been damaged by the treatment to which she was subjected at Ratcliffe Road. However thereafter there were differences of opinion. She had had a very troubled childhood prior to the abuse. Her mother suffered from mental illness, drank to excess and hit her children.
JL was born in October 1959, the youngest of six children. Her father left home before she was born. Her childhood was disturbed. She was frequently struck by her mother and she was expelled from school because of her disruptive and dishonest behaviour. She was referred to a psychiatrist at the age of 8 and admitted to a psychiatric unit at the age of 9. In May 1974, she assaulted another girl with a pair of scissors and pleaded guilty to two charges of arson. In June 1974 she was admitted to a children’s home. She was increasingly disruptive and in September 1974 she was admitted to an adult psychiatric hospital from which she was discharged in March 1975. She was moved to Ratcliffe Road Children’s Home in March 1975 at the age of 15 years five months, she remained there until August 1978. She was actually kept at Ratcliffe Road by Frank Beck after her care order had expired.
Whilst at Ratcliffe Road, she was raped and buggered by Frank Beck on one occasion, and then raped by him on a number of other occasions. She was also subjected to regression therapy, as well as being physically and indecently assaulted by other members of staff, who in particular would jump on her injured ankle.
Following her discharge from Ratcliffe Road, she overdosed on paracetamol and was taken to hospital. She then began to abuse alcohol and drugs. She went to live with her mother but did not get on with her. She had a termination and in February 1980 she was admitted to Rauceby Hospital, Sleaford where she remained until January 1982. On release she went back to abusing drink and drugs. She also obtained work as a packer in a seafood factory, but had to give this up due to medical problems with her stomach. Between 1984 and 1986 she attended Boston College. She obtained a Diploma at the end of her first year but did not complete the second year course. She was still drinking to excess. She then formed a relationship with a woman for some two years, but when this broke down she went back to drinking and self mutilation. In 1987 she worked as an onion packer for some 13 months and then similar work with two other employers. In 1989 she began to live with her present companion and by May 1990, they had obtained a mortgage to buy a house together. In May 1990 she gave a statement to the police about Ratcliffe Road. This had caused great difficulties in her relationship with her companion.
HELD:-
DLB
Justice Potts examined the psychiatric evidence and history of DLB. The Defendant accepted that the Claimant was subjected to abuse at Ratcliffe Road, but they also submitted that it was likely, if not inevitable that this Claimant would have had problems in any event, and that it was artificial and unrealistic to suggest that, even with proper care, she would have emerged into adulthood unscathed, given the pre-existing disturbance. Their psychiatrist said that the assessment of causation was a matter of degree and they accepted that it was for the court to weigh the balance.
Justice Potts said that he had heard the evidence of the other Claimants in this case. He was abundantly satisfied that in reaching his conclusions, the psychiatrist seriously underestimated the extent and effect of the Ratcliffe Road regime upon DLB.
Justice Potts saw no advantage in investigating the differences between the experts on the appropriate label for the Claimant’s condition. The most serious of these were her proclivity to self harm. Justice Potts accepted the Claimant’s medical expert’s evidence to the effect that the Claimant’s self mutilation by cutting was the direct consequence of her abuse at Ratcliffe Road. One of the Claimant’s experts, Dr Trevor Friedman felt that treatment would improve the Claimant’s prognosis. However she would always be distressed by her experiences.
Justice Potts then considered the issue of damages. There were three heads:-
- Pain, suffering and loss of amenity
- Handicap on the open labour market
- The cost of therapy
Justice Potts said that the correct approach was to concentrate on the duration of the exposure to the regime at Ratcliffe Road, the post-Ratcliffe Road/pretrial duration of pain, suffering and disability and future pain and suffering and disability which would continue notwithstanding therapy.
Justice Potts was referred to the Judicial Studies Board Guidelines, in particular the Chapter headed “Psychiatric Damage” and a transcript of the judgment in Godwin v Uzoigwe 16th June 1992, CA. In this case a girl aged 16 – 18 was some two and a half years held in the Defendant’s house as a slave, required to work very long hours and kept a virtual prisoner. She was awarded £25,000 and this included a compensatory element of aggravated damages. The Court of Appeal substituted an award of £20,000. Justice Potts had not been referred to any case in the books on all fours with the present. The Claimant was 15 ½ when admitted to Ratcliffe Road and 17 ½ when she left. The “treatment” there had been calculated to make her dependent on her abusers. Her enjoyment of life had been substantially ruined, her self mutilation indicated the severity of her suffering and she would suffered the consequences of the abuse for the rest of her days. The award for pain and suffering would be £50,000.
There was no specific evidence in relation to handicap on the open labour market and no figures placed before Justice Potts. However he took the view that he was entitled to have regard to the figures for average earnings for females (which had been put in JL’s case). An appropriate sum would be for past, present and future handicap £10,000.
In relation to therapy, the sum claimed and supported by Dr Trevor Friedman was £21,450. Some reduction would be made to this figure for accelerated payment, and so £20,000 would be awarded.
Justice Potts considered whether there was any overlap between the awards. In his view, there was not and he would award a total sum of £80,000.
JL
The Defendants had pointed to inconsistencies in the Claimant’s account of events. Justice Potts said that Frank Beck had been convicted of buggering and raping her, and one of his officers, Jaynes had been convicted of assaulting her and causing her actual bodily harm. However there were unsatisfactory aspects in her evidence, for which reason Justice Potts had approached her evidence with caution. A care worker, Sue Morton gave evidence and she confirmed the way in which Frank Beck did not like children talking to the police and social workers.
Justice Potts found that the Claimant had been raped on many occasions, and buggered on one occasion. She was subjected to indecent assaults by Beck and other male members of the staff. She was also physically assaulted on numerous occasions. The first incident of rape (when she was also buggered) had occurred at a time when she was a virgin, and thereafter she frequently suffered from vaginal infections and discharges. Beck also required her to fellate him.
The Claimant had said that on one occasion she was raped by Beck and two of his officers, Jaynes and Fiddiman. However this evidence was unreliable and Justice Potts said this incident was not proved to the required standard.
Jaynes and Fiddiman also used repeated violence on the Claimant’s right ankle. The Claimant had had this ankle X rayed in 1995 and a consultant rheumatologist had said that there was a history of trauma to the right ankle and foot in the past. A consultant immunologist, who had treated the Claimant who said that she was suffering from Reflex Sympathetic Dystrophy, a condition characterized by pain and swelling, usually involving a whole hand or foot. This could be brought on by stress. The Defendant’s expert, a consultant neurologist had said that emotional or psychological stress could not cause or trigger this condition, although he accepted that it could aggravate the symptoms He also said that the condition of the Claimant’s right foot was due to ischaemic changes caused by years of heavy smoking.
Justice Potts said that there was no contemporaneous evidence to support the injury to the ankle. Although he held that violence had been done to this part of the Claimant’s body, it was not as repeated as she said. There was also some doubt about the evidence the Claimant had given about her right foot. Justice Potts said that he was satisfied that the Claimant had not deliberately or consciously misled the court when she gave evidence concerning the condition of her right foot and ankle from 1995 onwards. He concluded that the present condition of the Claimant’s right foot was due to Reflex Sympathetic Dystrophy. However that condition was not brought about by the treatment to which the Claimant had been subjected at Ratcliffe Road. He was unpersuaded that the emotional and psychological stress to which the Claimant was subjected between 1990 and 1995 could have been triggered or caused by the Claimant’s present condition.
In relation to causation, there was an issue as to whether the Claimant’s problems were caused by her pre care experiences or her experiences at Ratcliffe Road. Justice Potts considered the various opinions of the medical experts. His view was that the majority of the Claimant’s present psychological difficulties were due to her experiences at Ratcliffe Road.
There was also some dispute between the medical experts as to the Claimant’s diagnosis. However the Claimant’s present symptoms, as opposed to the label to attached to them, were not in issue. These included deliberate self-harm, including both cutting and overdosing, severe depression, abuse of alcohol and drugs, suicidal ideas, non-existent feelings of self-esteem and self-worth. By 1990 she was in a stable relationship and had stopped abusing drugs and alcohol. However since giving evidence at Beck’s trial, the Claimant’s mental state had deteriorated.
Mr Justice Potts then considered the issue of damages:-
In relation to pain, suffering and loss of amenity, there was no case on all fours with the present. Justice Potts had been referred to Kemp and Kemp together with the Judicial Studies Board Guidelines for the Assessment of Damages in Personal Injury cases.
The Defendants had referred to Re G, Kemp and Kemp C4/100 a decision of the Criminal Injuries Compensation Board. A girl suffered very serious sexual abuse in a care home between the ages of 15 and 19. She became a psychiatric in patient and the prognosis was guarded. The CICB awarded her £50,000 general damages together with £50,000 for loss earning capacity. The Claimant’s counsel had referred to Griffiths v Williams, 21st November 1995 CA where a jury had awarded the Claimant £50,000 to compensate her for one act of rape. This was appealed and reference was made to the case of W v Meah (1986) 1 AER 935. The Court of Appeal said that it was quite impossible to say that the figure of £50,000 was out of all proportion to the circumstances of the case. Justice Potts said that if the Lord Justice Rose (one of appeal judges) had made his own award, he might have awarded £40,000.
In relation to Re G Justice Potts had no information as to how that decision was arrived at. He had heard the Claimant give evidence over many days, and the way in which the extent of the abuse was supported by other witnesses. He derived little assistance from the CICB case, but he felt that the award in that case was too low. Furthermore the award of general damages in Griffiths (updated to today’s date at £53,520) was wholly inadequate. As Rose LJ had pointed out in Griffiths the circumstances and consequences of rape place it in a different category from personal injury cases in general. He would award £80,000 under this head of claim.
In relation to past loss of earnings capacity, the Claimant’s case was that between 1978 and April 1995 she lost work as a result of the condition described above. He had been supplied with detail of what the Claimant would have earned over the whole of the relevant period had she been in work as a supervisor or in middle management. He had also been supplied with details of the Claimant’s potential earnings in manual work over the relevant period. Justice Potts was unable to accept that the Claimant would have found work at a supervisory or middle management level. Therefore he had employed manual work figures and a broad brush approach. He would award £60,000 for the entire period. That figure took into account earnings received during the period as well as benefits.
However a discount would be applied to that figure. Justice Potts could not overlook her pre-existing problems nor could he ignore the effect of accidents and incidents unrelated to the claim for capacity to work. During the period in question, there had also been an economic recession. Justice Potts would award £40,000.
In relation to therapy, the Claimant had expressed interest in taking up therapy. There was some difference in opinion between the medical experts on this point. The total sum claimed was £28,950 but this should be scaled down to reflect accelerated payment, to £25,000.
Justice Potts did not feel that there was any overlap between the heads of damage. The total award for JL would be £145,000.
Interest would be awarded on general damages from the date of service to the writ.
In relation to past loss of earning capacity, Justice Potts had indicated a figure of £10,000 for loss of handicap in the job market for DLB. However some of that figure related to future loss and some to past loss. Justice Potts said that he would apportion the loss between past and future, with one third to the past and two thirds to the future. Interest would be calculated therefore on one third of £10,000 at 2% from the date of service of the writ.
JL’s loss of earnings capacity was all in the past and stopped in April 1995. Interest would be awarded at 2% on the pain suffering and loss of amenity of £80,000 from the date of service of the writ and on the whole of the loss of earnings capacity claim in the sum of £40,000.
There was an issue in relation to the fact that the Defendant’s solicitors had paid in the sums of £40,000 in December 1995 and a further £140,000 on or after the 20th March 1996 in respect of JL’s claim. The second amount had actually been paid in after the conclusion of the submissions and before judgment. That amount exceeded the damages awarded by the court. Justice Potts was not prepared to grant the Defendant its costs after the 20th March 1996.
However there was then the issue of the Claimant’s costs subsequent to the 20th March 1996. Justice Potts was not prepared to make an order against the Defendant in the Claimant’s case.
There was also an issue in relation to generic costs. Justice Potts indicated that the Claimants would be entitled to generic costs up to the date of admissions made by the Defendant and thereafter generic costs reasonably incurred for the continuance of the trial.