PI Brief Update

Damages awarded against Gary Glitter for historic sexual abuse: BRS v Paul Francis Gadd [2024] EWHC 1403 KB - Amy Lanham Coles, Temple Garden Chambers

24/07/24. This case deals with the valuation of damages under the latest Judicial Colleges Guidelines (JCGs) for complex post-traumatic stress disorder (C-PTSD) arising from historic sexual abuse. Notably the Defendant did not engage with proceedings, and this should be borne in mind in respect of the quantification of damages – they were unchallenged.

FACTS

This deeply distressing case involved the repeated sexual assault and rape of a minor aged 12 years old by a singer. The child had been introduced to the Defendant on several occasions, during which the abuse occurred, after her mother attended backstage at one of his concerts. Having performed well at school before the abuse, the Claimant dropped out at age 13 with no qualifications. She struggled to retain jobs in the coming years and struggled with interpersonal relationships. It was her unchallenged evidence that she had managed to function to some degree until her mother died, when she became overwhelmed by her undisclosed abuse, leading to her reporting to the police. Over the years she had struggled with sleeping, suffered nightmares, dissociation, intrusive flashbacks, panic attacks and depression – having felt suicidal and taken overdoses. She engaged with criminal proceedings against the Defendant, finding this itself traumatic. The Defendant was convicted of sexual offences arising from the abuse in 2015, upon which the Claimant relied in these civil proceedings pursuant to section 11 of the Civil Evidence Act 1968.

The Claimant’s medical evidence established that she met the criteria for C-PTSD and recurrent depressive disorder and that both were caused by the abuse. This manifested in part as avoidance, such as through manic cleaning episodes as well as avoidance of school and work. The expert evidence accordingly considered her dropout from school as a response to trauma and therefore determined: “The abuse suffered and resultant C-PTSD is, on the balance of probabilities, causal in her under achievement educationally and lack of employment.” She was recommended to undertake psychotherapy and the expert was cautiously optimistic about her prognosis.

ISSUES

The judge was invited to quantify damages for pain, suffering and loss of amenity (PSLA), aggravated damages, past loss of earnings and future psychotherapy. The Claimant’s counsel submitted that the case fell within the “severe” bracket under the JCGs and should therefore attract a sum in the region of £130,000. The judge was invited to update the JCGs guidelines for inflation from August 2023 (para 29). The Claimant’s claim for lost earnings was based on the approximate average annual earning for female full time employees in the UK between 1999 and 2023, equivalent to approximately £20,000 net (para 38), whilst conceding she would have taken time away from work to raise her children. She therefore sought an award of 40% of 40 years at £20,000 per annum.

JUDGMENT

In reliance on the JCGs Chapter 4 Part (C), Tipples J held that this case did not fall within the “severe bracket” for PSLA because although the Claimant suffered serious abuse, she did not suffer abuse over a “prolonged period” (para 34). She considered an appropriate award as being at the top of the “moderately severe bracket” in the sum of £100,000 (para 34). She made no determination in respect of inflation per se.

Tipples J accepted that an additional sum for injury to feelings was appropriate, noting (a) that the Defendant had exploited his fame (b) the nature of the sexual abuse and (c) that the Claimant had been required to give evidence in both the criminal and civil proceedings – a relevant factor explicitly referenced in the introduction to Chapter 4 of the JCGs (para 36). These were assessed in the sum of £20,000 (para 36).

In respect of past loss of earnings, Tipples J accepted that the Claimant was “unable to obtain any meaningful employment throughout her life” because of the abuse (para 41). Broadly, she adopted the “rough and ready” approach advanced by the Claimant but reduced the earnings to £15,000 per annum for the period she was in work before 1999 (the date from which the Claimant’s figures were taken and the period in which the Claimant had raised her children) (para 41). This produced a total of £381,000. Finally, the cost of recommended Eye Movement Desensitisation and Reprocessing (EMDR) psychological treatment as awarded in full (para 44).

Image ©iStockphoto.com/josepmarti