Susan Rowlands v The Chief Constable of Merseyside Police

Aggravated damages are compensatory. They may compensate humiliation, injury to dignity, and anger or resentment caused by insulting, malicious or arrogant conduct. A separate award remains available where damages for psychiatric injury do not compensate the same harm. The jury must, however, be directed to avoid double recovery.

Where the evidence is capable of showing arbitrary, oppressive or unconstitutional police action, exemplary damages are for the jury. A chief constable may be ordered to pay exemplary damages under Police Act 1996, section 88, despite being only vicariously liable. The award is justified only where compensatory damages do not provide adequate punishment and must be no more than necessary.

The claimant brought a County Court action for assault, false imprisonment and malicious prosecution arising from her arrest, detention and prosecution by a police officer. The jury rejected the police justification for the arrest, found the use of handcuffs unreasonable, found that the officer deliberately caused pain, and found that he had deliberately given false evidence before the magistrates.

The judge awarded agreed basic damages but withdrew from the jury the claims for aggravated and exemplary damages. He also treated £2,500 as an agreed award for malicious prosecution. The claimant appealed, contending that aggravated and exemplary damages should have been left to the jury and that the malicious-prosecution award had not been agreed.

1. Appeal allowed. The court entered judgment for the claimant for £19,850, comprising the basic damages already awarded, £6,000 aggravated damages and £7,500 exemplary damages.

2. The court held that counsel had agreed basic damages of £2,500 for malicious prosecution. Although the claimant might otherwise have recovered somewhat more under the guidance in Thompson, that point did not affect the total award.

3. The judge erred in withdrawing aggravated damages from the jury. Damages for psychiatric injury compensate persistent medically recognised harm. They do not necessarily compensate the distinct humiliation, injury to pride and dignity, anger and resentment caused by a public arrest, deliberate infliction of pain, and a false attempt to procure conviction. Aggravated damages are primarily compensatory, though they may have a punitive effect. The jury would have required a direction against compensating the same injury twice. The Court of Appeal assessed that head itself at £6,000.

4. The evidence was capable of supporting a finding of arbitrary, oppressive or unconstitutional action within the first Rookes v Barnard category. It included unjustified restraint and detention, deliberate pain from the handcuffs, false information used to obtain a charge, and false trial evidence. The question whether that conduct warranted exemplary damages should therefore have been left to the jury.

5. A chief constable may be liable for substantial exemplary damages under section 88 of the Police Act 1996 where the officer’s conduct warrants them, even though the chief constable is not personally at fault. Policy permits a punitive award against the person publicly responsible for the force without making the award depend on the individual officer’s means.

6. Compensatory and exemplary awards must be considered together. Since £12,350 compensatory damages did not adequately punish the police conduct, but more serious police misconduct had attracted larger awards, £7,500 was appropriate exemplary damages.

• Court of Appeal (Civil Division): Allowed the claimant’s appeal in [2006] EWCA Civ 1773 and increased the judgment to £19,850.
• Liverpool County Court: A jury found the arrest unjustified, the handcuffing unreasonable, and the officer’s evidence deliberately false. The judge awarded basic damages but withdrew aggravated and exemplary damages from the jury.