Wrongful arrest award excessive, Judge rules

Press, 4 February 1986, Page 8

Wrongful arrest award excessive, Judge rules

PA Wellington The awarding of $60,000 to a former cancer patient, Rosemarie Jayne Duffy, for wrongful arrest was excessive and a miscarriage of justice, Mr Justice Eichelbaum ruled in the High Court at Wellington yesterday.

His Honour ordered a new trial in relation to the first cause of action for wrongful arrest. The trial is to be limited to the size of damages.

He ordered the answers the trial jury gave to issues one to 16 in the case in relation to damages be set aside. His Honour, who presided over the original trial, said he reacted to the jury decision to award the damages with a sense of shock.

“My reaction that it was excessive has not diminished since then,” he said. A verdict of $20,000 damages could not have

been challenged. It would have been a reasonable trial verdict.

The awarding of three times that amount was out of all proportion to the circumstances, he said. “The combination of a plaintiff that made a sympathetic impression, a defendant (police) with an unpopular image, and an inflammatory set of circumstances carried this particular jury away,” he said.

His Honour said he was conscious of a risk of excessive damages but the actual amount awarded considerably exceeded his expectations. Miss Duffy was arrested by the police on November 13, 1981, on The Terrace for alleged drunkenness. She was kept in the custodial section of a police van for some time and detained at the Wellington police station for 2 >4 hours. The charges

were later discontinued. At the time of arrest, Miss Duffy was receiving chemotherapy treatment for cancer.

His Honour said the jury had had to take into account elements of deprivation of liberty, humiliation suffered and the indignation of being held with two drunk males. But, he said, the image of justice was not enhanced by extravagant awards of damages. Miss Duffy’s counsel, Mr John McLinden, said few people realised how hard it was to sue the police.

The amount awarded was 40 per cent of what was claimed. The award was made by a jury gravely concerned about actions of the police. Mr Jim Larsen, for the : Crown, said the question was whether the damages were excessive. He submitted that they were.