Neutral Citation no.[2001] NIQB 37
Ref:  
COGF3503

 
Judgment: approved by the Court for handing down
Delivered:
22.10.2001
(subject to editorial corrections)

 

 
 
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE IN NORTHERN IRELAND
 
 ________ 
 
QUEEN’S BENCH DIVISION
 
 _______ 
 
BETWEEN:
 
JOSEPH DOUGLAS, MARY FEARNON AND PAUL FEARNON
 
Plaintiffs;
 
-and-
 
CHIEF CONSTABLE OF THE ROYAL ULSTER CONSTABULARY
 
Defendant.
 
 ________ 
 
COGHLIN J
 
            Each of these three plaintiffs has brought a claim against the Chief Constable of the Royal Ulster Constabulary arising out of the same incident which occurred on 14 March 1997 at the Derryhirk Inn, Lurgan, County Armagh.  In each case the defendant has admitted liability and the only issue to be determined by the court is that of damages.  However, since each plaintiff claims to have sustained a significant degree of post-traumatic psychiatric damage, I think that it is important to record a brief outline of the background facts.
            On the evening of 14 March 1997 Joseph Douglas, who was then 44 years of age, was working as a doorman at the Derryhirk Inn.  Shortly after 10.00 pm, accompanied by another doorman, he left the premises in order to investigate two men who seemed to be acting suspiciously near cars in the car park.  As Mr Douglas approached an entry leading into a field he was confronted by a gunman who pointed a gun at him and told him not to move.  Mr Douglas reacted by turning and running back to the Inn and, as he did so, a number of shots were discharged.  After returning to the Inn he saw a gunman who appeared to be standing at the foot of some stairs shouting up towards people in an attic.  He also observed a gunman in the lounge area who seemed to be threatening somebody who was kneeling on the floor.  
            On the same evening Paul Fearnon and his wife, Mary Fearnon, had attended the Derryhirk Inn for a meal.  They had just finished their main course when they heard shots outside the premises and the lights were extinguished.  A man then entered the area in which the diners were seated acting in a very aggressive manner and carrying a gun to which a light was attached.  The Fearnons, together with other visitors to the premises, panicked and sought to take refuge under the tables.  The gunman, who was dressed in dark clothing and wearing a baseball hat, then picked out Mr Fearnon with the light on his gun and compelled him to kneel in the open space with his hands behind his head.  He presented the gun to Mr Fearnon’s head and alleged that he had recently been in the car park and had just run into the premises.  Mr Fearnon did his best to explain his presence believing that he was being interrogated by a paramilitary terrorist and that he was about to be shot.  Two police officers, wearing normal police uniform, then arrived on the scene and Mr Fearnon thought that there was going to be a shoot out in which he might be killed or injured during cross-fire.  However, these officers walked past the gunman without any undue concern and they were quickly followed by a large number of police and soldiers.  Mr Fearnon realised that this was some form of police/army operation and he returned to his wife.
            A short time later the person who had compelled Mr Fearnon to kneel, and presented a gun to his head when doing so, returned in the company of two police officers whose attention he directed to Mr Fearnon.  Mr Fearnon was then arrested, taken outside the premises where he was handcuffed and made to wear a forensic cape and, subsequently, he was removed to Gough Barracks.  At Gough Barracks Mr Fearnon was processed and he agreed to co-operate with a number of tests carried out by a forensic investigator.  After being placed in a cell he was subjected to two interviews by detectives before eventually being told that he would be released.  The duty sergeant, to whom Mr Fearnon referred to in evidence as “a gentleman” then arranged for Mr Fearnon to be conveyed back to his home.
            It appears that, as a result of this incident, disciplinary proceedings were instituted against one or more officers and both Mr Douglas and Mr Fearnon were required to attend hearings at Newtownards which were adjourned on a number of occasions.  During the autumn of 1997 Paul Fearnon took part in a television programme about the incident for the “Spotlight” series.  In September of 2000 a meeting was arranged at the offices of these plaintiffs’ solicitors between a large number of people who had been affected by this incident and the Chief Constable.  At that meeting the Chief Constable apologised individually to these plaintiffs, an act which they clearly felt reflected a high degree of personal integrity on his part.  
Joseph Douglas
            Joseph Douglas attended his general practitioner some four days after the incident with symptoms of severe anxiety, panic attacks, palpitations, loss of appetite and insomnia.  He was prescribed anti-depressant medication as well as medication to aid his insomnia.  This level of medication subsequently had to be increased and Mr Douglas suffered from hyperarousal and hypervigilance.  While Mr Douglas appears to have been a somewhat nervous individual, he had not received any psychiatric treatment prior to this incident.  His symptoms gradually improved over time and he forced himself to return to work as a doorman at the Derryhirk Inn upon one occasion.  Initially, he obtained part-time employment as a painter and, subsequently, this became full-time.  He managed to wean himself off the medication for a period of about twelve months but then, as a result of the pressures of being required to attend postponed disciplinary hearings, he suffered a relapse which required him to be admitted to the Psychiatric Unit in Craigavon Area Hospital for a period of some three weeks in April 2000.  Approximately three months after his release from hospital he again managed to do without medication.  He continues to suffer some anxiety symptoms but these are likely to improve and, even if they do not disappear completely, Dr Daly, consultant psychiatrist, does not consider that they should unduly trouble him in the future.  Overall, Dr Daly considers that it is “unlikely” that Mr Douglas will experience any long term psychological problems.  
            In the circumstances, I award Mr Douglas £12,500.00.
Paul Fearnon
            Mr Fearnon went into his work following his release from Gough Barracks and tried to continue as normal.  However, he soon became very agitated and was physically ill necessitating his return home.  He attended his GP who prescribed medication for his anxiety and loss of sleep.  He was absent from work until May 1997 but has since remained in employment.  He was referred to the Craigavon and Banbridge Trust Psychiatric Unit where he was seen as an outpatient on 26 June 1997.  His medication of Prothiaden and Prozac was continued and he was also prescribed Melleril.  Dr Daly, consultant psychiatrist, who first saw Paul Fearnon in September 1997 concluded that he had developed both a post traumatic anxiety state and a depressive illness although he did not quite fulfil the criteria for a diagnosis of post traumatic stress disorder.  His symptoms intensified with the occurrence of terrorist incidents and he also suffered a deterioration when attending the postponed disciplinary hearings.  Mr Fearnon said that he felt a great sense of relief consequent upon the respondent’s admission of liability.  By the end of 1999 Mr Fearnon had ceased to take anti-depressant medication although he remained on night sedation.  Dr Trimble, consultant psychiatrist, who clinically reviewed Mr Fearnon on a regular basis concluded that he had made a significant recovery although it was likely that he would remain vulnerable to the effects of stressful events and that he could suffer a relapse of symptoms.  Dr Knox, consultant psychiatrist, who examined the plaintiff on 21 April 2001 found it rather difficult to reconcile the major concern which the plaintiff seemed to have about being subject to terrorist attacks with his ability to work in “iffy” areas of Portadown and his appearance, at a relatively early stage, in the Spotlight programme.  In the course of giving evidence this plaintiff stated that he had been able to return to his hobby of shooting some three years ago and that in May 2000 he had gone for a holiday in Spain.  He emphasised that appearing on the Spotlight programme had afforded him an opportunity to “tell his side of the story”.  He volunteered the opinion that the resolution of this claim was the “last obstacle” and that there was now “light at the end of the tunnel”.  
            While there is no doubt that this plaintiff has achieved a significant recovery, I am satisfied from watching and hearing him give evidence that he still suffers from residual symptoms as a result of what must have been a quite terrifying incident.
            Paul Fearnon was falsely imprisoned for a total of some six hours and ten minutes and the principles applicable to the assessment of damages for wrongful arrest and false imprisonment were recently discussed by the Court of Appeal in Northern Ireland in Dodds –v- Chief Constable of the Royal Ulster Constabulary [1998] NI 393.  In the course of giving the judgment MacDermott LJ, at page 403, suggested the following propositions:
“1.       In a straightforward case of wrongful arrest and imprisonment the starting point is likely to be about £600 for the first hour during which the plaintiff has been deprived of his or her liberty.
 
2.         A period of one day (24 hours) should normally attract an award of about £4,000 to £5,000 depending upon circumstances.”
 
            The Lord Justice cautioned against adopting an inflexible arithmetical approach and contrasted the case of a person wrongfully arrested as a result of a legal technicality as opposed to someone who is detained after his innocence became clear.  The latter would attract more damages than the former.  In Dodds the Court of Appeal awarded £4,000 to an innocent plaintiff, who was not unreasonably treated but who was not of normal intellectual capacity, as compensation for detention in police custody for 19 hours.  In the instant case the period of detention was considerably shorter although Paul Fearnon, who had never previously been arrested, was completely innocent and had recently been subjected to a “very harrowing experience” to use Dr Knox’s phrase.  In the circumstances, I propose to award a figure of £2,000 under this head.  No argument in relation to aggravated or exemplary damages was addressed to the court.  To this I propose to add a figure of £20,000 in respect of general damages making, in all, a total of £22,000.00.
Mary Fearnon
            This lady suffered psychiatric damage as a result of witnessing the events concerning her husband to which I have just referred.  She was absent from work for a period of six weeks and she derived considerable assistance from regularly recording in writing her feelings, emotions and experiences.  She attended her general practitioner who commenced a course of anti-depressant medication.  In December of 1997 she was referred to the community mental health team and attended regularly until May 1998.  In his report of 1 October 1997 Dr Daly, consultant psychiatrist, expressed the view that this plaintiff had developed both post traumatic stress disorder and a depressive illness as a result of the incident.  In February 1999 Dr Daly noted that, during the intervening sixteen months, there had only been a very slight improvement and he thought that it was unlikely that she would regain her previous psychological health.  However, in February 2001 the plaintiff told Dr Knox, consultant psychiatrist, that she had “greatly improved” compared to her situation during the first year or two after the incident and he thought that she was probably justified in predicting that she would benefit from further improvement after resolution of her claim.  Dr Knox was unable to share Dr Daly’s pessimism and he could see no good reason why the plaintiff should not be entirely restored to her former state of mental health.  During the course of giving evidence Mary Fearnon quite freely volunteered that she felt that she had improved.  She agreed that she had not been in receipt of medication since March 1999 and that she felt that the conclusion of these proceedings would remove “an obstacle” to an even further degree of improvement.  In the circumstances, I propose to award this plaintiff £17,500.00.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE IN NORTHERN IRELAND
 
 ________ 
 
QUEEN’S BENCH DIVISION
 
 _______ 
 
BETWEEN:
 
JOSEPH DOUGLAS, MARY FEARNON AND PAUL FEARNON
 
Plaintiffs;
 
-and-
 
CHIEF CONSTABLE OF THE ROYAL ULSTER CONSTABULARY
 
Defendant.
 
 ________ 
 
J U D G M E N T
O F
COGHLIN J
 ________