Thompson v Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judge | LORD WOOLF, MR |
| Judgment Date | 19 February 1997 |
| Judgment citation (vLex) | [1997] EWCA Civ J0219-3 |
| Court | Court of Appeal (Civil Division) |
| Docket Number | CCRTF 95/0947/C |
| Date | 19 February 1997 |
[1997] EWCA Civ J0219-3
The Master of the Rolls
Lord Justice Auld
Sir Brian Neill
CCRTF 95/0947/C
Ccrtf 96/0448/C
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF JUDICATURE
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL (CIVIL DIVISION)
ON APPEAL FROM THE CENTRAL LONDON COUNTY COURT
(HIS HONOUR JUDGE QUENTIN EDWARDS QC)
Royal Courts of Justice
Strand
London WC2
MR D PANNICK QC and MISS F BARTON (Instructed by D S Hamilton, Solicitors Dept. New Scotland Yard, London, SW1H 0BG) appeared on behalf of the Appellant.
MR B EMERSON (Instructed by B M Birnberg & Co. London, NW1 7HJ) appeared on behalf of the Respondent, Thompson.
MR D PANNICK QC and MR N AINLEY (Instructed by D S Hamilton, New Scotland Yard, London SW1H 0BG and Bircham & Co, London SW) appeared on behalf of the Appellant.
MR E FITZGERALD QC and MR B EMERSON (Instructed by Christian Fisher, London, WC1A 1LY) appeared on behalf of the Respondent, Hsu.
This is the judgment of the court.
In a number of recent cases members of the public have been awarded very large sums of exemplary damages by juries against the Commissioner of Police for the Metropolis for unlawful conduct towards them by the police. As a result these two appeals have been brought by the Commissioner. The intention is to clarify the directions which a judge should include in a summing up to assist the jury as to the amount of damages, particularly exemplary damages, which it is appropriate for them to award a plaintiff who is successful in this type of action. As similar appeals are pending any guidance given by us on this subject should influence the outcome of those appeals in addition to providing guidance for the future.
Both appeals are in relation to awards made by juries at trials over which His Honour Judge Quentin Edwards Q. C. presided at the Central London County Court. The directions as to damages which he gave to the jury in both cases were similar. In each case he heard submissions from counsel for both parties as to the nature of the directions which he should give prior to summing up. It is accepted by the Commissioner that the directions given to the jury adequately reflected the submissions made by counsel on his behalf.
On the existing state of the authorities the directions to the juries on the issues as to damages were adequate. The criticisms which Mr Pannick Q.C., who appeared in these appeals on behalf of the Commissioner, makes of the summing up only have substance if, for the reasons to be explained later in this judgement, it is now open to judges to give juries in this class of action more detailed guidance as to damages than has been the practice hitherto.
As the directions which the juries were given were satisfactorily judged by the standards set by the existing practice, the approach we propose to adopt is that the Commissioner is only entitled to succeed on either appeal if he can establish that the damages which the juries awarded were wholly erroneous or disproportionate to the damage which the respective plaintiff. is entitled to recover. The damages which were awarded to Mr Hsu were £220,000, of which £20,000 were compensatory, including aggravated damages, and £20O,000 exemplary damages. The damages were for wrongful arrest, false imprisonment and assault. In the case of Miss Thompson the jury awarded £1,500 as compensatory, including, aggravated, damages and £50,000 exemplary damages. Miss Thompson cross appeals as to the award of compensatory damages.
Mr Pannick accepts that in determining these appeals, the facts must be approached on the assumption that both juries rejected his client's witnesses' version of events and accepted that of the Plaintiffs and their witnesses when they were in conflict. Adopting that approach we examined the facts in some detail and are very conscious having done so that in both cases, on the juries' verdicts, the conduct of the police officers involved can only be described as outrageous and totally inconsistent with their responsibilities.
Outline of the facts in the case of Mr Hsu
The incident which triggered the events about which Mr Hsu complains arose because a woman who was previously a lodger occupying a room at his home complained to the police that Mr Hsu was wrongfully preventing her from collecting her belongings from his home. Two officers therefore attended at the house on the evening of the 29th July 1992. They demanded entry but this was refused by Mr Hsu because they were not able to produce any document which gave them authority to do so. Subsequently three officers tried to force their way into the house. When Mr Hsu attempted to prevent this he was arrested forcefully. His arms were twisted behind his back, he was placed in a head lock, he was punched in the face, struck across the face with a set of keys and kicked in the back (he later passed blood in his urine). He was also racially abused. Part of this conduct was observed by his neighbours and the former lodger and her father. He had a most uncomfortable journey to the police station where he was placed in a cell for about one and a quarter hours. He was refused police transport home, although he had nothing on his feet. He was taken home by a friend only to find that in his absence his house had been entered and in addition to the belongings of the lodger being removed some of his own property was missing.
The police's justification for the arrest, which was rejected by the jury, was that Mr. Hsu had pushed a police officer in the chest. This allegation must on the jury's verdict have been deliberately falsely recorded in the notebooks of the officers so that the entries would be used to support their evidence in the court below.
Mr Hsu sustained cuts and bruises and a stiff neck. He had a predisposition to depression and was socially and culturally isolated and three years after the incident he was still suffering some symptoms of a post traumatic distress disorder which would be alleviated by the disposal of this litigation.
Outline of the facts in the case of Miss Thompson
The events relating to the appeal by Miss Thompson start when she was lawfully arrested on the 28th September 1991 at about 5 a.m. in connection with a drink and driving offence to which she pleaded guilty on 23 April 1992. She would have been released in the normal way on bail at about 7am but instead she was granted bail by the magistrates court at 9. 18 a.m.
Matters went wrong in the case of Miss Thompson when it was decided to place her in a cell. Considerable and unnecessary force was used in doing this some 4 or 5 officers were involved, 2 of whom were women officers. In the course of this part of her hair was pulled out and, in Miss Thompson's own words, "it was like I was being abused physically and sexually by all of them". As a result of this assault, in addition to the loss of hair, Miss Thompson was bruised and had pain in the back and hands.
The police' s case, which was rejected by the jury, was that the force was only used after Miss Thompson had refused to be searched, that during the struggle she bit one of the officers fingers causing it to bleed and assaulted other officers. As a result she was charged with assault occasioning actual bodily harm. On the 23rd April 1992 (7 months after the arrest) she was acquitted of the lesser offence which had been substituted of assaulting the officer in the execution of his duty. In his powerful submissions on Miss Thompson's behalf Mr Emmerson stresses that this malicious prosecution involved the fabricating of a deliberately false case of the injury to the officer's finger and two officers of the rank of inspector together with other officers giving false evidence. Miss Thompson was subjected to the ordeal of having to listen to this false evidence being used against her. A consequence of the false case was that on the day of her arrest Miss Thompson was taken to the magistrates' court in handcuffs. She was also deprived of her liberty during the criminal trial.
The Circumstances In Which The Court of Appeal Can Interfere With The Jury's Assessment of Damages
The Court of Appeal plays a significant role in regulating the amount of damages awarded by first instance courts by issuing guidelines. This is particularly true in the case of damages for personal injuries. In Wright v British Railway Board [1983] 2 AC 773 at p 784/5 Lord Diplock referred to this role, saying:
"it is an important function of the Court of Appeal to lay down guidelines
…..The purpose of such guidelines is that they should be simple and easy to apply though broad enough to permit allowances to be made for special features of individual cases……. Guidelines laid down by an appellate court are addressed directly to judges who try personal injury actions; but confidence that judges will apply them means that all those who are engaged in settling out of court the many thousands of claims that never reach the stage of litigation at all, or if they do, do not proceed as far as trial, will know very broadly speaking what the claim is likely to be worth….."
"The Court of Appeal, with its considerable case-load of appeals in personal injury actions and the relatively recent experience of many of its members in trying such cases themselves, is, generally speaking, the tribunal best qualified to set the guidelines for judges currently trying such actions, particularly as respects non-economic loss; and this House should hesitate before deciding to depart from them, particularly if the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
- Cheong Fatt Tze Mansion Sdn Bhd v Hotel Continental Sdn Bhd (Hong Hing Thai Enterprise Sdn Bhd)
-
Karagozlu v Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis
...entitled to general damages: see eg Roberts v Chief Constable of Cheshire [1999] 1WLR 662, and, more importantly, Thompson and Hsu v Commissioner of Police for the Metropolis [1998] QB 498, where this court gave guidance as to directions which might be given to juries in cases of false im......
-
R (Walumba Lumba and another) v Secretary of State for the Home Department
...damages in respect of unlawful imprisonment were authoritatively reviewed by this court in Thompson v Metropolitan Police Commissioner [1998] QB 498. Having explained the directions which should be given to a jury in relation to compensatory or aggravated damages, the court indicated that ......
-
Anton Barkhuysen v Sharon Patricia Hamilton
...for false imprisonment, as well as for malicious prosecution, were given by the Court of Appeal in February 1997 in Thompson & Hsu v Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis [1998] QB 498. Damages should compensate for the loss of liberty and the injury to feelings. For malicious prosecutio......
-
Sports Law Update: TVZ V Manchester City Football Club [2022] EWHC 7 (QB) (Part 2 Of 2)
...awards for non-monetary loss for false imprisonment and malicious prosecution (Thompson v Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis [1998] QB 498). There was no punitive element to these awards. Mr. Justice Johnson affirmed that, for each case, he had not made a separate award for aggravated......
-
Subject Index, Volume 77, 2004
...mother and litigation friend) v ChiefConstable of Thames Valley Police, July 2004, CA (Civ) 261–264Thompson v Metropolitan Police Comr [1998] QB 498 143White v Chief Constable of South Yorkshire [1999] 1 All ER 1 HL 143374 The Police Journal, Volume 77 TABLE OF STATUTES, VOLUME 77, 200442 U......
-
STATUTE AND THEORIES OF VICARIOUS LIABILITY.
...previous common law position. (191) Stevens, Torts and Rights (n 9) 265, discussing Thompson v Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis [1998] QB 498. See also Ibbett (n 105). However, vicarious liability does not take away the employer's personal (direct) liability so that, as a matter of ......
-
The Evolution of the Common Law and Efficiency*
...273 (Eng.). 175. [1997] Q.B. 586 (Eng.).176. Defamation Act, 1996, c. 31, §§ 8-9.177. Thompson v. Comm'r of Police of the Metropolis, [1997] 2 All E.R. 762 (Eng.).178. Lewis N. Klar, The Impact of the U.S. Tort Law in Canada, 38 Pepp. L. Rev. 359, 366 (2011); see also Senior Courts Act, 198......