Thompson v Metropolitan Police Commissioner [1998] QB 498
JURY DIRECTIONS – AGGRAVATED DAMAGES
Facts
The case concerned two conjoined actions by claimants who had been manhandled, assaulted, and abused by police officers employed by the defendant. Both brought claims for a combination of assault, personal injury, malicious persecution, and wrongful imprisonment. At first instance, both were awarded aggravated damages. The defendant appealed against the award of aggravated damages in each case, arguing that the judge had improperly directed the jury on the issue of aggravated damages and that the awards were excessive.
Issue
The issue concerned the appropriate directions which should be given to the jury in a claim for compensatory and aggravated damages.
Held
The court emphasised the need to give the jury stronger guidance in determining the quantum of damages in claims for false imprisonment or malicious persecution, on account of the need for consistency. In this regard, a separate award should be made for each category of damages in order to ensure transparency.
With respect of compensatory damages, the judge should indicate to the jury appropriate upper and lower limits. Where an award of exemplary damages was appropriate, the judge should direct that this should not be punitive although it may contain a penal element. He should propose a starting figure and direct that the award should generally be less than twice the basic award.
In this case, the lack of such direction had led the jury to award excessive damages. The court therefore substituted the awards for lower sums.
Updated 20 March 2026
This case summary remains broadly accurate as a description of the Court of Appeal’s decision in Thompson v Metropolitan Police Commissioner [1998] QB 498. The guidelines established in Thompson on jury directions for compensatory, aggravated, and exemplary damages in false imprisonment and malicious prosecution claims against the police continue to be cited and applied by the courts.
However, readers should be aware of two important developments. First, the article refers to ‘malicious persecution’ throughout; the correct legal term is malicious prosecution, and this is not merely a drafting point — readers researching the law should search under the correct terminology. Second, and more significantly, the relevance of the Thompson guidelines has been substantially affected by the Courts and Legal Services Act 1990, s.8, and by subsequent case law. In John v MGN Ltd [1997] QB 586 and later authorities, the courts developed the practice of referring juries to conventional awards in personal injury cases for comparator purposes. More broadly, jury trials in civil cases — including police misconduct claims — have become increasingly rare following procedural reforms, meaning the guidelines on jury directions are now of more limited practical application than they were in 1998. The substantive law on false imprisonment and malicious prosecution itself has not materially changed, but students should note that the procedural context in which Thompson operates has evolved considerably.
