Punitive Remedies in UK Law

First, in my judgment, Part VI of the 1988 Act was not intended to negate a proper claim for exemplary damages in civil proceedings. But it plainly contemplates that the victim's proper civil claims are to be preserved and is a strong indication that the Crown Court should usually avoid double counting—see also the discretionary safeguards in section 72AA.

An award of compensation will go some distance towards vindicating the infringed constitutional right. The fact that the right violated was a constitutional right adds an extra dimension to the wrong. An additional award, not necessarily of substantial size, may be needed to reflect the sense of public outrage, emphasise the importance of the constitutional right and the gravity of the breach, and deter further breaches.

In assessing the appropriate damages for injury to reputation the most important factor is the gravity of the libel; the more closely it touches the plaintiff's personal integrity, professional reputation, honour, courage, loyalty and the core attributes of his personality, the more serious it is likely to be. The extent of publication is also very relevant: a libel published to millions has a greater potential to cause damage than a libel published to a handful of people.

It would embrace all persons purporting to exercise powers of government, central or local, conferred upon them by statute or at common law by virtue of the official status or employment which they held.

Exemplary damages or punitive damages, the terms are synonymous, stand apart from awards of compensatory damages. They are additional to an award which is intended to compensate a plaintiff fully for the loss he has suffered, both pecuniary and non-pecuniary. They are intended to punish and deter.

From time to time cases do arise where awards of compensatory damages are perceived as inadequate to achieve a just result between the parties. On occasion conscious wrongdoing by a defendant is so outrageous, his disregard of the plaintiff's rights so contumelious, that something more is needed to show that the law will not tolerate such behaviour. Without an award of exemplary damages, justice will not have been done.

As I understand Lord Devlin's speech, the circumstances in which exemplary damages may be obtained have been drastically reduced, but the range of offences in respect of which they may be granted has been increased, and I see no reason since Rookes, v Barnard why, when considering a claim for exemplary damages, one should regard the nature of the tort as excluding the claim.