Wrongful Disclosure Compensation Claim

(1) X (2) Y V Chief Constable Of Greater Manchester Police (2004)

Assessment of damages to be paid to a police informant and his partner as a result of personal injury consequent on the wrongful disclosure of the informant's identity.

The claimants, (X) and (Y) respectively, sought damages from the defendant chief constable for breach of duty of care and/or confidentiality. The chief constable had conceded liability for those breaches at trial and the instant decision therefore went to the measure of damages. For a number of years X had provided information to the police about the activities of known or suspected criminals or criminal activity in his local area. Y was X's partner.

X was himself no part of the criminal community and had been very active in local community matters and local politics. Although he had received assurances of anonymity from the police, the Crown Prosecution Service divulged to the lawyers for defendants (D) in a murder case that X had supplied certain information to the police about D. Before that time the claimants had already experienced a number of attacks and threats. The disclosure resulted in further attacks, as well as death threats. Prior to the disclosure of X's identity, he and Y had set up in business together operating a mobile food van.

After the disclosure the claimants were treated as though they were on the witness protection scheme and were relocated and took on new identities. Both X and Y claimed damages for psychiatric injury. X alone claimed for past loss of earnings as well as for future loss of earnings, on the basis that he would be unable to resume remunerative employment. X also claimed for loss of opportunity to become a member of parliament. The experts, two consultant psychiatrists, agreed that X had suffered psychiatric injury, but disagreed as to its proper categorisation. The experts also agreed that X's symptoms had prevented him from holding down paid employment, but that a return to work was possible. With respect to Y, the experts agreed that she suffered from a depressive disorder.

HELD: (1) X was suffering from, and had suffered from, an adjustment disorder at the top end of the "moderate" range. By the time of the trial there had been a marked improvement in X's condition and the prognosis for him was good. That injury was to be met by an award of £10,000. The risk to X from D at the time of the instant trial was to be assessed as very low. X's own perception of the continuing risk had been reduced. The extent of the disruption to his previous life, coupled with his continuing perceptions warranted an award of some significance. The effect on X's life was to be met by an award of £15,000.

(2) Y suffered "moderately severe" depressive disorder that had not improved markedly by the time of the instant trial. That injury should be met by an award of £17,500 and an award of £15,000 was appropriate in respect of the effect on her life.

(3) In the circumstances, the court should assess the loss of earnings by reference to the net profits of the mobile food van business, making allowance for the lack of complete records. The calculation should be assessed on weekly receipts of £583 on the basis of a 48-week working year, with a yearly increase of two per cent. X would be capable of returning to work in the relatively near future. Future loss of earnings should be assessed on the above figures, with the appropriate period for future loss of earnings being taken as nine months. Further argument was to be heard in the event that counsel could not agree to figures for past and future loss of earnings.

(4) The prospect of X becoming a member of parliament was too remote and speculative to justify an additional award of damages for loss of opportunity.

Damages - Personal Injury

QBD (Davis J) 7/4/2004

LTL 20/4/2004 (Unreported elsewhere)

Document No.: AC0108215