The claimant sought damages after false imprisonment by the defendant for 20 minutes. The Judge had withdrawn from the jury the possibility of awarding exemplary damages on the basis that there was no suggestion of oppressive behaviour on the part of the police.
Held: The judge had been wrong to withdraw that claim. The Court considered whether in every case falling within a Rookes v Barnard category there should be an award of exemplary damages. It concluded that this was not the law and that what the Court had to do in each case was to consider all the circumstances and to decide whether such an award would serve any useful purpose. It was not enough that the action was simply unconstitutional; there had to be an improper use of ‘constitutional or executive power’.
Purchas LJ said: ‘If full effect is to be given to the word ‘or’ in the category ‘oppressive, arbitrary or unconstitutional action’ by government servants, wrongful arrest falls within the category without any of the added qualifications suggested by the judge, in which case the question whether or not to award exemplary damages should have been left to the jury with appropriate directions as to what special features of the case they might in their discretion take into account in deciding whether or not to award such damages, and, if so, how much.’
Judges:
Purchas LJ
Citations:
[1987] QB 380
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
Cited by:
Cited – Muuse v Secretary of State for The Home Department CA 27-Apr-2010
The claimant, a Dutch national, was detained pending deportation. He was arrested ‘for immigration’ after being given bail in other proceedings. It had been found that that detention was unlawful. He did not come within the criteria for deportation, . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Damages, Torts – Other
Updated: 02 May 2022; Ref: scu.408657