Miller & Anor, R (on the application of) v The Independent Assessor

Miller & Anor, R (on the application of) v The Independent Assessor

The Independent Assessor did not err in law or act irrationally in his assessment of compensation. He properly applied the principles analogous to those governing damages for false imprisonment and malicious prosecution, used personal injury awards as a proportionality check, and his awards were consistent with prior comparable cases. The sums awarded were not irrationally low and the breakdown of heads of loss was reasonable given the risk of overlap.

Parties
Claimant: Stephen Miller; Claimant: Darren Hall; Defendant: The Independent Assessor
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
13 November 2008
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review / Final Judgment
Outcome
Claims dismissed
Legal Topics
Miscarriage of Justice, Compensation Assessment, False Imprisonment, Malicious Prosecution, Damages
Criminal Law Administrative Law Compensation Law Miscarriage of Justice Compensation Assessment False Imprisonment Malicious Prosecution Damages

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 4 Authorities cited 9 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 8
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Stephen Miller

Claimant

Darren Hall

Claimant

The Independent Assessor

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review / Final Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Independent Assessor applied the correct legal principles in assessing compensation for non-pecuniary loss following wrongful conviction and imprisonment.
  2. 2 Whether the awards for loss of liberty and associated heads were irrationally or unreasonably low.

Ratio Decidendi

The Independent Assessor did not err in law or act irrationally in his assessment of compensation. He properly applied the principles analogous to those governing damages for false imprisonment and malicious prosecution, used personal injury awards as a proportionality check, and his awards were consistent with prior comparable cases. The sums awarded were not irrationally low and the breakdown of heads of loss was reasonable given the risk of overlap.

Court Disposition

Claims dismissed