Kutlu Fuad P:

This is an appeal by the plaintiff, Madam Kuan Kwai Choi, from the judgment dated 12 September 1992 of the Chief Justice, Dato' Sir Denys Roberts, in relation to the quantum of damages she was awarded in her successful action against Inspector Ak Zaidi bin Pg Metali of the Royal Brunei Police Force.Throughout the proceedings Madam Kuan has acted in person.The Chief Justice gave her judgment for BD3,000 general damages and costs.

The main facts were never in dispute.It seems that on 11 June 1990, Madam Kuan had not attended Court as she should have done in connection with a criminal charge pending against her.On that day, a Magistrate issued a warrant of arrest "to produce her before the Magistrate's Court at Bandar Seri Begawan". On 22 June 1990, the defendant's superior officer instructed him in a minute endorsed on the warrant to "proceed with it ... soonest".

Armed with the warrant, and accompanied by two women police constables, the defendant arrived at the plaintiff's house at about 10 a.m. on the following day.It is at Kg Anggrek Desa, Jalan Berakas, Bandar Seri Begawan.When told by the defendant about the warrant, the plaintiff said that she had failed to attend Court on 11th June because she had been sick.After changing her clothes, the plaintiff was taken in a police car to the police station nearest her home, at Berakas.

When the party reached the police station some 5 minutes later, the defendant made a record of the fact that he had brought the plaintiff there under arrest, in a register.At about 10.00 a.m. the plaintiff's personal belongings were taken away from her and she was locked up in a cell.Twenty third June 1990, was a Saturday.

The defendant then drove to the Central Police Station and, at about 11 a.m., wrote a minute to his superior officer DSP Kamaluddin.There was no response to this minute until 3.30 p.m. When the defendant spoke to the DSP at 4 p.m. he was ordered to take the plaintiff to the Court, but when the DSP and the defendant telephoned the Court they could get no answer.Just before 4.30 p.m. the defendant made a note of the fact that he could not take Madam Kuan to Court in time that day.

On the following Monday, at 2 p.m., she was taken to Court by other police officers.The defendant had had nothing to do with the case after 4 p.m. on the Saturday.

The Chief Justice referred to s. 47 of the Criminal Procedure Code and held that since Madam Kuan should have been taken directly and "without unnecessary delay" to Court on the morning of her arrest, she had been falsely imprisoned from approximately 10.30 a.m. on Saturday 23 June to 2 p.m. on Monday 25 June, a total of 52 hours.However, he concluded that although it had been the initial mistake of the defendant which had caused Madam Kuan to be detained in Berakas Police Station, the evidence had demonstrated that he had had nothing to do with her after about 4 p.m. on 22 June.Thus it could reasonably be said that it was only between 10.30 a.m. and 4 p.m. on that day, the first 6 hours of her detention, after which the matter had been handed over by the defendant to the DSP, that Madam Kuan had been falsely imprisoned as a result of action taken by the defendant.From 4 p.m. on 23rd June, the DSP had had charge of her and was responsible for her continued false imprisonment.The defendant himself would not have been in a position to release her even had he wished to do so.

The Chief Justice then went on to consider the appropriate quantum of damages which should be awarded to Madam Kuan.He reviewed a number of authorities on the matter.He found that the plaintiff's reputation had been adversely affected as a result of the wrongful imprisonment but that there were no aggravating circumstances.He did not think that an award of exemplary damages would be justified.In conclusion, on this aspect of the case, he said:

Had I been of the view that the defendant was responsible for the whole of the wrongful detention of Madam Kuan,