Historical child sex abuse victims awarded £200,000 damages

A judge in the Court of Session ruled that both pursuers, who also claimed that they were raped by the defender, were victims of a “very serious course of sexual abuse” and that they were entitled to reparation for all of the assaults and wrongs each complained of in the summons after summary decree had been previously granted in their favour.

‘Loss, injury and damage’

Lord Doherty heard that the pursuers “A”, 40, and “B”, 31, raised personal injury actions seeking damages from the defender “C” for sexual abuse which he carried out in the 1980s and 1990s while A was between the ages of eight and 19 and B was between the ages of eight and 11.

In December 2013 the defender was convicted after trial at the High Court of Justiciary of indecent behaviour and of sexual assault against A, his step-daughter, when she was aged between eight and 19, and against her cousin B when she was aged between about 10 and 11, although the defender was acquitted of a charge of raping A when she was aged about 12.

The pursuers sought damages for the “loss, injury and damage” caused by the deliberate acts of sexual assault, and fault, of the defender at common law.

In December 2017 Lady Carmichael granted the pursuers’ motions for summary decree in relation to liability in each action and directed that proof be restricted to quantum.

At the proof before Lord Doherty, the court heard evidence from A, who described C as a “very intimidating and controlling person” and said the abuse had a damaging impact on her schooling, her life and work after leaving home, and on her relationships with family members.

A report from a consultant psychiatrist also stated that as a result of the abuse she experienced A developed “a post traumatic constellation of symptoms” involving both anxiety based symptoms and depressive symptoms, adding that her mental health problems have had a “significantly adverse impact on her life”.

B’s evidence was contained in an affidavit, which detailed the abuse she suffered when she visited C’s home as a child and the impact on her life, and stated that she “suffered and continues to suffer nightmares” about what happened, adding that “What he did to me will impact on me for the rest of my life.”

Solatium

On behalf of A it was submitted that, having regard to the nature and severity of the abuse, its frequency, its duration, her age at the time, the defender’s breach of trust, and the emotional, social, psychiatric and psychological consequences of the abuse, and the ordeal of the criminal trial, an appropriate award for solatium would be £120,000 plus interest, with a further £50,000 for loss of earnings given the “detrimental effect” of the abuse on her earning capacity, £5,000 for medical expenses.

For B it was submitted that an appropriate award would be £20,000 plus interest.

However, counsel for C argued that the effect of the summary decree in each case had been that the defender had been found liable to make reparation to the pursuer in respect of the abuse he had been convicted of, and therefore any evidence at proof of abuse that went beyond the terms of the conviction, namely rape, was not relevant and the court should not take it into account.

It was submitted that in A’s case an award of £80,000 for solatium would be appropriate, but it was contended that there “no proper evidential basis” for concluding on the evidence that the pursuer would have done better at school or would have had a better career but for the abuse.

In relation to B, it was submitted that the court should proceed on the basis that there had not been any rape, as that would reflect the terms of the defender’s conviction, and it was suggested that an appropriate award for her would be £15,000.

‘Gross breach of trust’

The judge held that the effect of the grant of summary decree in each case was that the defender was found “liable to make reparation for all of the assaults and wrongs which each pursuer complained of in her summons” and that in neither case was liability restricted to the crimes of which the defender was convicted, further observing that no evidence was led by the defender to contradict either pursuer’s account.

In a written opinion, Lord Doherty said: “The pursuer (A) was the victim of a very serious course of sexual abuse which began when she was eight and persisted until she was 19. She was robbed of her innocence, and she was deprived of a normal happy childhood and adolescence. The defender grossly abused a position of trust… The abuse has had serious consequences for the pursuer, some of which are enduring.

“In the whole circumstances I think that an award of £90,000 for solatium is appropriate. I allocate three-quarters of that sum (£67,500) to the past, and I attribute £45,000 of it to the period up until the pursuer left home and the remaining £22,500 to the period between her departure from home and the date of decree.”

He awarded £10,000 for loss of earnings, with half of that sum allocated to the past, and further £5,000 towards medical expenses.

With interest on solatium and past loss of earning capacity amounting to £62,000, the total damages awarded to A was £167,000.

In relation to B, Lord Doherty added: “On any view this was a serious course of abuse. It involved a young child and a gross breach of trust.

“The overall duration and the frequency of the abuse were less than in A’s case. The emotional and psychological consequences for B were significant, but they too have been much less severe than in A’s case.

“I agree with counsel for the pursuer that an award of £20,000 is appropriate…I allocate 85% of the award (£17,000) to the past, with £12,000 of it being attributed to the period of the abuse.”

With interest, the total damages awarded to B was £33,000.