Stewart & Anor v The Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis

Damages for unlawful police conduct must be assessed by applying general principles to the particular circumstances and degree of harm proved. Earlier authorities provide broad guidance, but the evidence accepted at trial remains central. Aggravated damages should be reflected in the individual award where the circumstances justify it; a blanket multiplier is inappropriate. Exemplary damages require conduct properly warranting condemnation. Procedural inadequacy or sloppiness, without malicious or similarly condemnable conduct, will not suffice where ordinary damages provide adequate compensation.

Following a three-week jury trial, a mother and son succeeded on parts of claims arising from four police incidents: a stop and arrest, an unlawful mistaken arrest, and two searches of their home. The jury found, among other matters, that excessive force had been used during the first incident, that the mistaken arrest was unlawful, and that the searches and handcuffing were not shown to be reasonable and proportionate. The judgment determined damages only, including claims for trespass, false imprisonment, assault, breach of article 8 rights, special damages, aggravated and exemplary damages, and declaratory relief.

1. Damages. The court assessed compensation by applying the general principles identified in Thompson and Hsu v Commissioner of Metropolitan Police [1997] EWCA Civ 3083. Earlier decisions and the Judicial College Guidelines supplied broad guidance, but the jury’s factual findings and the circumstances and degree of harm caused were of particular importance.
2. The approach in Mohidin, Khan and Hegazy v Commissioner of the Police for the Metropolis [2015] EWHC 2740 (QB) was not a departure from general principles. Its transparent reasoning provided a helpful model for explaining how each award was reached.
3. Aggravated damages. The awards were adjusted upwards where the circumstances justified recognition of aggravating features. A blanket multiplier was inappropriate because the relevant features differed between claims.
4. Exemplary damages. Applying the principles in Rookes v Barnard [1964] AC 1129, the inadequate and sloppy warrant procedures did not amount to conduct properly deserving condemnation. The warrants had not been obtained maliciously, and ordinary damages adequately compensated the harm. No exemplary damages were awarded.
5. The claim for harassment under section 1 of the Protection from Harassment Act 1997 should not have been pursued because the allegation had not been put to the officers or advanced at trial. Declaratory relief was also refused. Damages were awarded in the sums of £5,400 to the First Claimant and £5,700 to the Second Claimant.

First-instance damages judgment following jury findings in the High Court. No lower-court decision or appeal is stated in the judgment.