Aggravated, Exemplary and Restitutionary ... - Law Commission
Aggravated, Exemplary and Restitutionary ... - Law Commission
Aggravated, Exemplary and Restitutionary ... - Law Commission
You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles
YUMPU automatically turns print PDFs into web optimized ePapers that Google loves.
1.123 In Archer v Brown 382<br />
the punishment already exacted by the criminal courts was<br />
very arguably treated as sufficient alone to bar an exemplary award. Peter Pain J<br />
decided not to award exemplary damages against a defendant who had already<br />
been convicted <strong>and</strong> imprisoned in respect of a corresponding criminal offence.<br />
The proposition on which the judge relied, in the absence of authority, was a very<br />
broad one which did not raise any question as to the sufficiency of the criminal<br />
punishment. This was that a “man should not be punished twice for the same<br />
offence”:<br />
[W]hat seems to put the claim [to exemplary damages] out of court is<br />
the fact that exemplary damages are meant to punish <strong>and</strong> the<br />
defendant has been punished. Even if he wins his appeal he will have<br />
spent a considerable time in gaol. It is not surprising that there is no<br />
authority as to whether this provides a defence, since there is no direct<br />
authority as to whether exemplary damages can be given in deceit. I<br />
rest my decision on the basic principle that a man should not be<br />
punished twice for the same offence. Since he has undoubtedly been<br />
punished, I should not enrich the plaintiff by punishing the defendant<br />
again. 383<br />
1.124 Nevertheless, Archer v Brown is not an unassailable authority for the proposition<br />
that a court will refuse an award of exemplary damages whenever a defendant has<br />
already been punished by a criminal court for the conduct in question. In Archer v<br />
Brown the defendant had already spent a “considerable time” in prison, <strong>and</strong> would<br />
spend even more time in prison if an appeal against his sentence failed.<br />
Imprisonment is obviously a very severe form of punishment. Accordingly it is<br />
possible that Archer v Brown is consistent with the court having a discretion to<br />
refuse an award of exemplary damages, which Peter Pain J exercised in the<br />
circumstances, because, in view of the severity of the criminal punishment exacted,<br />
no further civil punishment was necessary or fair.<br />
1.125 Another important decision is AB v South West Water Services Ltd. 384<br />
The Court of<br />
Appeal gave as one, albeit secondary, reason for striking out the claim to an award<br />
of exemplary damages, the “conviction <strong>and</strong> fine” of the defendants. No reference<br />
was made to the size <strong>and</strong> sufficiency of the fine: the Court of Appeal appeared to<br />
be content that the defendant had been criminally punished. And because the<br />
proceedings were striking out proceedings, the court must have been convinced<br />
that it was a “clear <strong>and</strong> obvious” case, or one which was “doomed to fail”. 385<br />
If so,<br />
it is arguable that the court considered that there was no scope for argument about<br />
the sufficiency of the punishment that was exacted by the criminal law. The<br />
relevant passage proceeds as follows:<br />
382 [1985] 1 QB 401.<br />
383 [1985] 1 QB 401, 423G-H.<br />
384 [1993] QB 507.<br />
385 [1993] QB 507, 516C-E. See also Devonshire & Smith v Jenkins, noted at pp 31-32 of<br />
Arden & Partington on Quiet Enjoyment (3rd ed, 1990), in which the court declined to award<br />
exemplary damages on the grounds, inter alia, that the defendant already had to pay a fine<br />
for substantially the same deeds.<br />
66