Factual and Procedural Background
This is a quantum hearing to assess damages following findings for the claimants by the Court of Appeal on liability for malicious prosecution and misfeasance in public office. The claimants were charged in April 2008 with murder linked to an alleged contract killing from March 1987. The case was tried at the Central Criminal Court, but in February 2010 a judge excluded key prosecution witness evidence due to misconduct by a senior police officer, Detective Chief Superintendent ("DCS Cook"), who improperly influenced the witness. Following this, the prosecution was discontinued in March 2011, resulting in not guilty verdicts for the claimants.
The claimants issued damages claims. Initially, the High Court dismissed the claims on liability, but the Court of Appeal reversed that decision. The Court of Appeal found that DCS Cook, as the senior officer, had maliciously manipulated evidence and acted as a de facto prosecutor, causing the prosecution without reasonable cause. The Court also held that the defendant police authority was liable for misfeasance in public office, concluding that without the tainted evidence, the prosecution would not have proceeded.
Legal Issues Presented
- Whether the defendant police authority was vicariously liable for malicious prosecution caused by the senior police officer’s conduct.
- Whether misfeasance in public office was established given the deliberate perversion of justice by the senior police officer.
- The appropriate quantum of damages to be awarded for malicious prosecution, including basic, aggravated, and exemplary damages.
- Whether previous convictions of the claimants should reduce damages, especially for loss of reputation.
- The relevance and extent of damages for loss of liberty and whether the absence of a trial affects the quantum.
- The justification for exemplary damages given the nature of the misconduct and public interest considerations.
Arguments of the Parties
Claimants' Arguments
- Claimants seek damages reflecting mental distress, humiliation, anxiety, and loss of liberty caused by malicious prosecution.
- They argue for aggravated damages due to the senior police officer’s malice, the protracted nature of the case, and the defendant’s refusal to apologise or waive privilege.
- Claimants contend that exemplary damages are warranted to publicly condemn the egregious conduct of the senior officer.
- They submit that previous convictions should not substantially reduce damages given the gravity and publicity of the murder charge.
- The claimants rely on established guidelines from precedent cases for assessing damages, adjusted for inflation and case-specific factors.
Defendant's Arguments
- The defendant argues that damages should be reduced due to the absence of a trial and the claimants’ previous convictions, which diminish loss of reputation and distress.
- It contends that the litigation conduct does not justify aggravated damages and disputes the scale of exemplary damages sought.
- The defendant highlights that it is vicariously liable rather than personally liable for the senior officer’s conduct.
- It urges caution in using comparator cases, such as unlawful immigration detention, due to differing contexts and distress levels.
- The defendant notes the substantial public cost already incurred and argues against excessive exemplary damages.
Table of Precedents Cited
| Precedent |
Rule or Principle Cited For |
Application by the Court |
| Rees and Others v Commissioner of Police for the Metropolis [2018] EWCA Civ 1587 |
Liability for malicious prosecution and misfeasance in public office based on police misconduct. |
Adopted the facts and legal findings establishing liability of the defendant for damages assessment. |
| Thompson and Hsu v Commissioner of Metropolitan Police [1997] EWCA Civ 3083 |
Guidelines for jury directions on damages for false imprisonment and malicious prosecution. |
Used as the foundational framework for assessing compensatory, aggravated, and exemplary damages. |
| R v Governor of HMP Brockhill ex parte Evans [1999] QB 1043 |
Recognition of tapering effect on damages for loss of liberty over prolonged detention. |
Applied to adjust damages for long custody periods with diminishing incremental harm. |
| Karagozlu v Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis [2007] 1 WLR 1881 |
Additional damages for more restrictive custody conditions, including Category A detention. |
Applied to uplift loss of liberty damages for claimants held in high-security conditions. |
| AXD v Home Office [2016] EWHC 1617 (QB) |
Comparator for unlawful detention damages including distress and abuse. |
Referenced as a general check on quantum though not adopted as ideal comparator. |
| O'Brien and others v Independent Assessor [2003] EWHC 855 (Admin), [2004] EWCA Civ 103 |
Large awards for wrongful convictions with reductions for claimant criminality. |
Used to illustrate the scale of damages in serious wrongful conviction cases and relevance of antecedents. |
| Bento v Chief Constable of Bedfordshire [2012] EWHC 1525 |
Damages assessment principles in malicious prosecution cases. |
Considered for limited assistance in quantum assessment. |
| Manley v Commissioner of Police for the Metropolis [2006] EWCA Civ 879 |
Recognition that even claimants with bad character are entitled to compensation for malicious prosecution. |
Applied to reject total reduction for loss of reputation due to prior convictions. |
| Cairns v Modi [2012] EWCA Civ 1382 |
Considerations for exemplary damages and public condemnation. |
Referenced to support the need for exemplary damages beyond compensatory awards. |
| Washington v Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis [2003] Police Law Reports 35 |
Exemplary damages as public denunciation of unconstitutional police conduct. |
Used to justify exemplary damages to mark public censure of senior officer’s misconduct. |
| Riches v News Group Newspapers Ltd [1986] QB 256 |
Principle that exemplary damages awarded to multiple claimants should be divided equally. |
Applied to split exemplary damages equally among the three claimants. |
Court's Reasoning and Analysis
The court began by adopting the factual findings and legal conclusions from the Court of Appeal judgment establishing liability for malicious prosecution and misfeasance in public office based on the senior police officer’s deliberate misconduct. It analysed damages in three categories: basic, aggravated, and exemplary.
For basic damages, the court applied established guidelines from Thompson and Hsu, adjusting for inflation and the gravity of the murder charge. It recognized the unique distress caused by a murder prosecution, but rejected claims for damages three times the top end of the guideline, opting instead for a 50% uplift over the standard figures. The court also accounted for the claimants’ prior convictions, reducing awards modestly but recognizing that a murder charge adds significant stigma and distress even for those with criminal histories.
Regarding loss of liberty, the court distinguished between the first two claimants, who were detained for 682 days including restrictive Category A custody, and the third claimant, whose relevant incarceration was nine days added to a long lawful sentence. It applied principles from R v Governor of HMP Brockhill ex parte Evans and Karagozlu to adjust for the severity and conditions of detention, acknowledging a tapering effect for long custody and the absence of initial shock in the third claimant’s case.
On aggravated damages, the court accepted that the senior officer’s conduct was "thoroughly reprehensible" and that the defendant’s conduct in litigation justified an uplift, but rejected the lack of apology as an aggravating factor. The court found no evidence of cynical conduct by the defendant in defending the claim and noted the adversarial nature of the proceedings.
Exemplary damages were deemed necessary to publicly condemn the senior officer’s egregious misconduct and to denounce any "noble-cause" justification for corrupt police practices. The court acknowledged the public interest and the need for deterrence, while balancing the substantial financial impact on public funds. It ruled that exemplary damages should be awarded, split equally among the claimants, as a distinct element from compensatory damages.
The court rejected arguments for significant reductions due to the absence of a trial, emphasizing the lengthy judicial process and jeopardy the claimants faced. It also rejected substantial reductions for prior convictions, applying a moderate discount but recognizing the serious nature of the murder charge and the associated harm.
Holding and Implications
The court’s final decision is to award damages to the claimants as follows:
- The first and second claimants are each awarded £155,000, comprising:
- Basic award for distress: £27,000
- Loss of liberty: £60,000
- Aggravated damages: £18,000
- Exemplary damages: £50,000 (one third of total exemplary award)
- The third claimant is awarded £104,000, comprising:
- Basic award for distress: £27,000
- Loss of liberty: £9,000
- Aggravated damages: £18,000
- Exemplary damages: £50,000 (one third of total exemplary award)
Interest is to run from the date of judgment. Costs and interest are to be agreed between the parties. The court emphasized that no new legal precedent is established beyond the application of existing principles to an unusual and serious case of police misconduct. The decision underscores the judiciary’s role in ensuring accountability for public officers and provides guidance on the assessment of damages in complex malicious prosecution claims involving senior police corruption.