Arrested person - deferral of access to solicitor - failure to give reasons - whether cause of action in damages

Cullen v Chief Constable of the Royal Ulster Constabulary: HL (Lord Bingham of Cornhill, Lord Steyn, Lord Hutton, Lord Millett and Lord Rodger of Earlsferry): 10 July 2003

The claimant was arrested under section 14(1)(b) of the Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Act 1989, and asked to see a solicitor.

During his period in custody, four authorisations were issued under section 15 of the Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Act 1987, deferring his right of access to a solicitor.

No reasons, as required by section 15(9)(a), were given.

The claimant eventually pleaded guilty to an offence.

He brought an action against the defendant chief constable for damages in respect of, among other things, the failures to give reasons.

The judge held that he did not have a cause of action, and the Court of Appeal dismissed his appeal.

He appealed.

Seamus Treacy QC and Fiona Doherty (both of the Northern Ireland Bar) (instructed by Madden & Finucane, Belfast) for the claimant; Bernard McCloskey QC and Paul Maguire (both of the Northern Ireland Bar) (instructed by the Treasury Solicitor for the Crown Solicitor, Belfast) for the defendant.

Held, dismissing the appeal (Lord Bingham of Cornhill and Lord Steyn dissenting), that the appropriate remedy for breach of section 15(9)(a) of the 1987 Act was judicial review and, therefore, a detainee who had suffered no harm as a result of the breach did not have a private law remedy in damages.

(WLR)

Jury awarding libel damages - exceptional award reduced on appeal - no infringement of constitutional right to freedom of expression

The Gleaner Co Ltd and another v Abrahams: PC (Lord Hoffmann, Lord Hope of Craighead, Lord Hobhouse of Woodborough, Lord Millett and Mr Justice Tipping): 14 July 2003

A jury awarded the claimant Jamaican$80.7 million in libel damages, equal to 1.2 million, which the Court of Appeal of Jamaica reduced on appeal to J$35 million, or 533,000.

The defendant appealed to the Privy Council contending that the substituted award was still excessive, that it curtailed the right to freedom of expression under section 22 of the Constitution of Jamaica, and that the Court of Appeal had erred in law in ruling that juries should not be referred to awards of general damages in personal injury cases, following the practice in England since John v MGN Ltd [1997] QB 586.

Lord Lester of Herne Hill QC and Tom Weisselberg (instructed by Theodore Goddard) for the defendant; Lord Gifford QC, Winston Spaulding QC of the Jamaican Bar, and Heather Rogers (instructed by Finers Stephens Innocent) for the claimant.

Held, dismissing the appeal, that the question whether juries assessing libel damages should be referred to personal injury awards was one of policy and involved no question of legal principle; that the Court of Appeal had not erred in deciding that no change was desirable to the existing practice in Jamaica of not referring juries to such awards; that in view of the requirement in section 22, that any restriction on freedom of expression should be 'reasonably required', it had applied the correct test in asking itself whether a reasonable jury could have thought the award was reasonable to compensate the claimant, and had been justified in concluding that the appropriate sum was J$35 million; and that, although such a large award might inhibit irresponsible journalism, it did not infringe the right guaranteed by section 22 (See [2003] Gazette, 4 September, 24).

(WLR)