1) Unlawful detainment whilst shopping:

“This is a claim for damages sustained by the Claimant as a result of his unlawful arrest, false imprisonment and assault on 13th October, 2008 at The 99 Pence Shop / Poundland, St John’s Precinct, Liverpool. The said incident occurred during the afternoon, at some time after 2.00 pm.
On the day of the said incident the Claimant attended his church in Darley Street, Liverpool before setting off on his bike for home. He was wearing a distinctive church uniform These garments identified the Claimant with membership of his church. The Claimant was carrying a rucksack, a brief case and other bags, one or more of which also bore wordsconnecting him with his church.
On his way home, the Claimant stopped, secured his bike and made his way to The 99 Pence Shop to purchase some goods. After he had entered The 99 Pence Shop, the Claimant looked round and engaged in conversation with a security officer and then went upstairs to Poundland where he selected items which he put in a “Poundland” basket. The price of the items totalled about £27, which the Claimant paid in cash. As the Claimant paid for the goods the cashier put them in “Poundland” shopping bags.
The Claimant then left “Poundland” and went back downstairs to the 99 pence shop to look round again. Again he spoke to the first security officer. The Claimant told him he had bought a number of items and offered to give him one as a present.
Another security officer then approached, saying to the Claimant in a loud tone of voice: “You haven’t paid for that” and then said words to the effect that the Claimant had not paid for the rest of his items. The second security officer then proceeded unlawfully to arrest, falsely to imprison and to assault the Claimant by physical detention, pushing and man-handling him, despite the Claimant’s repeated assertions that he had paid for the items and that “it is all a mistake”. The Claimant was escorted through the Precinct in ahumiliating mannor. He was returened to the Poundland storeand taken through the srore to the back.The manager of the store accepteded their had been a mistake and there had been no grounds for the arrest. The arrest and imprisonment of the Claimant by the second security officer was purportedly for an offence of theft in “Poundland”. In fact there had been no such theft and therefore the second security officer had no right to act as he did. The second security officer was not a constable.
The second security officer was an agent and/or employee of the Defendant for the purposes of all his involvement with the Claimant during the said incident. The Claimant sort damages. When considering the facts and the manner of the arrest the following facts were taken into account

The second security officer told the Claimant “You’re going back up”, meaning the Claimant had to go back upstairs to “Poundland”. Then the second security officer whilst still controlling the Claimant by putting his hand on his back, took him up the escalator to “Poundland”. Once there, the second security officer marched the Claimant through the shop and into a store-room at the back. He detained the Claimant there whilst they waited for the manageress. When she arrived the manageress told the second security officer that he had no right to arrest the Claimant because he had done nothing wrong. There had been a mistake at the till. The manageress apologized, as did the second security officer and the cashier.
As a result of the said incident the Claimant suffered loss and damage for which he claims damages, including aggravated damages
The Claimant estimates that the said incident lasted between 20 and 30 minutes from the moment the Claimant was challenged at “The 99 Pence Shop” to the moment when he left the Poundland Shop.
The said incident occurred in the public view of crowded shops and thoroughfare. The Claimant estimates there were between 100 and 200 members of the general public present at various places as he was arrested and escorted back to the Poundland’s premises. He was severely embarrassed by this.
Throughout the said incident it was obvious to onlookers from the Claimant’s attire that he was connected with a Church and therefore belonged to an organisation which condemned dishonesty, including shoplifting. He was therefore exposed to ridicule and contempt beyond that which would have been normal.
The Claimant’s sense of shame continued beyond the period of time during which the said incident was occurring. So, for example, he became embarrassed to wear the full church uniform and feels ashamed to go back to the said premises (which he used to enjoy doing) in case he is recognized and taken to be a shoplifter.
The second security officer’s tone of voice when speaking to the Claimant was aggressive.
The second security officer could and should have minimized the Claimant’s embarrassment by announcing after they left the storage room that the arrest had been a mistake and/or that he apologized for causing embarrassment. Alternatively, the Defendant could either have published an apology afterwards or sent one to the Claimant as soon as they became aware of his identity in about May, 2009.

After the commencement of proceedings the claim settled for £2000.”

2) PTS award re. opening of claim to the Criminal Injuries Compensation Authority

In 2002 our client was working in a local confectioners shop in Liverpool when she was held up at gunpoint. Worse was to follow. Her assailant was standing at point blank range; our client thought she was going to die; the assailant pointed the gun at her and fired. The gun did not go off but the firing pin could be clearly heard. The man ran off leaving our client traumatised. The police were unable to trace the man. The events were reported to Victim Support; our client had some counselling and was on long term medication. Victim Support represented our client in a claim to the CICA and was able to obtain an award of £2,500 in respect of the psychological damage that this had caused her. CICA had decided to assess our client’s case as a short term minor complaint and did not seek any medical evidence. The client came to see Norman Jones who felt that the award failed to reflect the true symptoms that she had suffered and the impact that it had upon her life. She had lost her job as manageress and lost her income and status as manageress as a result. Following further representations the CICA increased the award to £11,000. This was still considered to be a gross undervalue and further taking into account:-
• The appropriate award for the psychological psychiatric injuries ought to be £18,000;
• Further taking into account past present and future loss of earnings including lost opportunity of working until 75;
• Care claim to reflect the needs of the client providing support and accompanying her when leaving the house;
• Travelling expenses, prescriptions and other incidental expenses.
The matter came before the Appeal Tribunal in January 2010 sitting in Liverpool and having heard the evidence including the medical evidence of a clinical psychologist increased the award to £74,000. The client has also benefited from the advice we have given in applying for and successfully being awarded for life Industrial Injuries Disablement Benefit. The client may now qualify for disability living allowance. may now qualify for disability living allowance.