Martin, a freelance
press photographer, was sent by the local paper to the scene of a fatal cycle
accident. The emergency services were
already present at the scene, which was cordoned off by the police.
Police take exception to presence of photo-journalist |
From outside the
cordon, Martin began to take photos.
Some police present took great exception to this, he was assaulted by
being rugby tackled, held in a headlock
and pulled around, his camera was seized and he was threatened that his vehicle
would be seized also. He was also
roundly abused and called a “sick pervert”. His protests that he was an
accredited photographer, only doing his job and not photographing the deceased,
went unheeded.
Martin was badly
shaken up, the assault aggravated longstanding back problems but more
importantly, he suffered an adverse psychiatric reaction which left him with a
low mood. He felt generally lethargic
and had problems concentrating. His sleep was disturbed. He lost interest in seeing friends or
socialising. He was prescribed anti-depressants It was recommended that he
undergo a course of cognitive behaviour therapy to overcome these
problems.
The Metropolitan
Police had accepted at a relatively early stage that what their officers had
done was unjustified and confirmed that they would not contest liability. But they did contest the claim for damages we
put forward, and they attributed most of Martin’s problems to underlying
difficulties in his history. There was
some evidence in Martin’s medical records of these difficulties.
Fortunately, a settlement
was reached shortly after the issue of proceedings, with Martin recovering
almost £13,000 for the pain, suffering and psychiatric disturbance which had
been caused by the assault. The
Metropolitan Police also agreed to pay Martin’s costs in full.
In English law, defendants cannot escape liability for their wrongful
acts by saying that their victim already had –eg - a bad back. The legal rule is that the
defendant takes his victim as he finds him. So it’s bad luck on the defendant
if his victim happens to be more vulnerable to injury. In fact this is known as
the “thin skull” rule.
But often the real
battleground is the cause of the claimant’s condition, ie to what extent is the
claimant’s pain and suffering attributable to the incident as distinct from
pre-existing problems, which had or would shortly have appeared, even without
the incident? Many cases resolve because both parties recognise that there are
risks in proceeding to trial where the outcome cannot be predicted. In fact
most accident cases are resolved far short of the trial itself. The skill lies
in securing a good outcome for the client as quickly as possible.