The claimants were entitled to damages for their detention as mental patients, where this had been found to be wrongful as an infringement of their human rights. The court considered the appropriate level of damages.
Held: There was no clear guidance in existence on the proper level of damages. An English court should be no lower than would be awarded for a comparable tort, an in line with general awards in this jurisdiction. It was wrong to compare such a detention with wrongful imprisonment since that would often be accompanied by feelings of humiliation and otherwise arising from the deliberately wrongful intention of the act in question. The court should compensate the injured party for his injury. It should not be lower because it was an human rights award. Even for mentally ill claimants not every feeling of distress would give rise to an award.
Mr Justice Stanley Burnton
Times 05-Mar-2003, [2003] EWHC 193 (Admin), Gazette 10-Apr-2003, [2004] QB 936, [2003] 3 WLR 185
Bailii
England and Wales
Cited by:
Cited – Faulkner, Regina (on The Application of) v Secretary of State for Justice and Another SC 1-May-2013
The applicants had each been given a life sentence, but having served the minimum term had been due to have the continued detention reviewed to establish whether or not continued detention was necessary for the protection of the pblic. It had not . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Health, Damages, Human Rights
Updated: 29 November 2021; Ref: scu.179102