Watson v Cleveland Police

Factual and Procedural Background

This appeal arises from a jury verdict dated 17th December 2000 in a trial at the Middlesbrough County Court presided over by Judge Taylor. The Plaintiff claimed damages totaling £21,500 plus interest against the Defendant, the Chief Constable. The damages comprised awards for assault, malicious prosecution, aggravated damages, and exemplary damages.

The Plaintiff was arrested on 3rd December 1996 in connection with offences related to theft and dishonest handling of motor vehicles. After being remanded in custody, he was held in a police station cell where he requested a blanket and toilet roll, which were not provided. Following his use of a buzzer to summon assistance, two officers entered his cell and allegedly assaulted him, causing superficial injuries.

The Plaintiff was charged with assaulting the officers, charges which persisted for over a year before being dropped in January 1998 after multiple trial adjournments. The Plaintiff had been released on bail for the theft offences but remained in custody on the assault charges until late December 1997.

The Defendant's witnesses testified that the Plaintiff had assaulted the officers first. A disputed offer of a deal to drop complaints and charges was also a significant issue in the case. The Plaintiff appealed on two grounds: the judge's restriction on cross-examination regarding previous convictions and the judge's directions on exemplary damages.

Legal Issues Presented

1. Whether the trial judge erred in exercising discretion by restricting cross-examination of the Plaintiff concerning his previous convictions, specifically excluding non-dishonesty offences.
2. Whether the jury's award of exemplary damages was excessive and if the judge failed to adequately direct the jury on the appropriate guidance concerning exemplary damages.

Arguments of the Parties

Appellant's Arguments

• The Appellant argued that, under section 6 of the Criminal Procedure Act 1865, the Defendant had an absolute right to cross-examine the Plaintiff on all previous convictions, without judicial discretion to exclude any.
• The Appellant contended that the judge wrongly restricted cross-examination to dishonesty offences only, excluding other convictions relevant to the Plaintiff's credibility.
• Regarding exemplary damages, the Appellant submitted that the judge failed to provide the jury with the recommended guidance from the precedent case Thompson and Hsu v Commissioners of Police for the Metropolis, particularly the principle that exemplary damages should not usually exceed three times the basic damages awarded.
• The Appellant maintained that the exemplary damages awarded were excessive given the relationship between the damages components and the judge’s own indicated brackets.

Respondent's Arguments

• The Respondent argued that the trial judge properly exercised discretion in limiting cross-examination to offences of dishonesty, excluding other convictions not directly relevant to credibility but rather to propensity, which is impermissible.
• The Respondent submitted that the jury’s award for exemplary damages, although above the judge’s indicated bracket, was justifiable due to the serious nature of the police conduct, including the involvement of a senior officer and the rejected evidence of a cover-up attempt.
• It was also argued that the judge’s discretion and directions were appropriate and that the jury was entitled to depart from the suggested brackets based on the evidence presented.

Table of Precedents Cited

Precedent	Rule or Principle Cited For	Application by the Court
R v Sweet-Escott [1971] 55 Cr App R 316	Judicial discretion to exclude cross-examination on convictions irrelevant due to age or lack of relevance to credit.	Applied to affirm that the judge had discretion to exclude certain convictions from cross-examination, supporting the limitation to dishonesty offences.
Clifford v Clifford [1961] 3 All ER 321	Convictions for any offence may be used in cross-examination to attack witness credibility, not limited to dishonesty offences.	Considered by the court to acknowledge that offences beyond dishonesty can affect credibility, but discretion remains for relevance and fairness.
Thompson and Hsu v Commissioners of Police for the Metropolis [1997] 2 All ER 762	Guidance on awarding exemplary damages, including a useful check that exemplary damages should not usually exceed three times the basic damages.	The court found the trial judge failed to provide this guidance, resulting in an excessive award of exemplary damages, which was subsequently reduced.

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The court examined the trial judge's exercise of discretion regarding cross-examination on previous convictions. It recognized the Appellant's assertion that all convictions could be put to the Plaintiff under statute but emphasized the common law and procedural rules granting judges discretion to exclude evidence irrelevant to credibility or unduly prejudicial. The court noted that the judge allowed cross-examination on 31 dishonesty convictions but excluded 27 other convictions primarily related to propensity rather than credibility, which was a proper exercise of discretion supported by the overriding objective of fairness and expeditious trial management.

The court further analyzed that the Appellant's submissions at trial focused on propensity rather than credit for the excluded offences, which justified the judge's limitation. The court concluded that even if the judge had erred in discretion, the error was not sufficiently prejudicial to overturn the verdict.

Regarding exemplary damages, the court reviewed the judge's directions and the jury's awards relative to the judge's brackets. It found that the jury awarded exemplary damages exceeding both the judge's upper limit and the guidance ratio suggested in the Thompson case. The court held that the judge failed to instruct the jury to consider the proportionality between exemplary and other damages, a significant omission leading to an excessive award.

While acknowledging the jury's likely adverse view of police conduct, including the rejected evidence of an alleged cover-up by a senior officer, the court determined that the exemplary damages should be reduced from £16,000 to £9,000 to align with proper legal principles and proportionality.

Holding and Implications

The court allowed the appeal in part, specifically reducing the award of exemplary damages from £16,000 to £9,000, resulting in a total damages award reduced from £21,500 to £14,500.

The court upheld the trial judge's discretion concerning cross-examination on previous convictions, finding no injustice in the limitation to offences of dishonesty. The reduction of exemplary damages reflects the court's commitment to ensuring damages awards are proportionate and consistent with established guidance, without setting new precedent beyond affirming existing principles on judicial discretion and damages assessment.