</P> <P>GINA SATVIR SINGH </P> <P>Claimant </P> <P></P> <P>And </P> <P></P> <P>PRITHVIPAL SINGH BHAKAR </P> <P>First Defendant </P> <P></P> <P>And </P> <P></P> <P>DALBIR KAUR BHAKAR </P> <P>Second Defendant </P> <P></P> <P align="center">Usha Sood (as instructed by Rosley's) for the claimant.<BR> Colin Anderson for the defendants</P> <P>JUDGEMENT </P></center> <P></P> <P><B>The Participants </B></P> <ol> <LI VALUE="1."><A NAME='para1'> In this case the Claimant, a young Sikh woman, sues her former mother in law, the Second Defendant, for damages for harassment for her conduct towards the Claimant during her marriage to the Second Defendant’s son. </A></LI> <P> </P> <LI VALUE="2."><A NAME='para2'> The case thus concerns two families who are both members of the Sikh community in England: the Singhs, who live in Bunny, Nottinghamshire, v the Bhakars, who live in Ilford, Essex. I heard oral evidence from the following members of the Singh family:• </A></LI> <P> </P> [2006] EW Misc 1 (EWCC)

EWMISC
</P> <P>GINA SATVIR SINGH </P> <P>Claimant </P> <P></P> <P>And </P> <P></P> <P>PRITHVIPAL SINGH BHAKAR </P> <P>First Defendant </P> <P></P> <P>And </P> <P></P> <P>DALBIR KAUR BHAKAR </P> <P>Second Defendant </P> <P></P> <P align="center">Usha Sood (as instructed by Rosley's) for the claimant.<BR> Colin Anderson for the defendants</P> <P>JUDGEMENT </P></center> <P></P> <P><B>The Participants </B></P> <ol> <LI VALUE="1."><A NAME='para1'> In this case the Claimant, a young Sikh woman, sues her former mother in law, the Second Defendant, for damages for harassment for her conduct towards the Claimant during her marriage to the Second Defendant’s son. </A></LI> <P> </P> <LI VALUE="2."><A NAME='para2'> The case thus concerns two families who are both members of the Sikh community in England: the Singhs, who live in Bunny, Nottinghamshire, v the Bhakars, who live in Ilford, Essex. I heard oral evidence from the following members of the Singh family:• </A></LI> <P> </P>
[2006] EW Misc 1 (EWCC)
[1]In this case the Claimant, a young Sikh woman, sues her former mother in law, the Second Defendant, for damages for harassment for her conduct towards the Claimant during her marriage to the Second Defendant’s son.[2]The case thus concerns two families who are both members of the Sikh community in England: the Singhs, who live in Bunny, Nottinghamshire, and the Bhakars, who live in Ilford, Essex. I heard oral evidence from the following members of the Singh family:•• The Claimant, to whom I shall refer as Gina. This practice was adopted during the trial for convenience.• Gina’s parents Paul and Sheila Singh ("Mr and Mrs Singh").• Mr Singh’s brother Steven Singh ("Steven").• Mr Singh’s sister Jaskaren Kaur Rathore ("Jaskaren").[3]Another of Mr Singh’s sisters, Surinder Kaur ("Surinder"), made a statement which is in the bundle [100] but was unable to come to court. Since her evidence substantially mirrors that of her sister Jaskaren, it was sensibly agreed that I should approach her evidence as if she had given evidence and her evidence had been challenged in the same way as Jaskaren’s.[4]All members of the Singh family who gave oral evidence spoke English with complete fluency.[5]The Bhakars. I heard oral evidence from:•• The First Defendant ("Mr Bhakar").• The Second Defendant ("Mrs Bhakar").• Mr and Mrs Bhakar’s son Hardeep, Gina’s former husband ("Hardeep").• Hardeep’s older brother Pardeep ("Pardeep").• Pardeep’s wife Arvinder ("Arvinder").[6]Hardeep and Pardeep spoke English with complete fluency. Mr Bhakar spoke good English but struggled for a word occasionally. He was more comfortable to have an interpreter sitting beside him, though in the event he scarcely needed any help. Mrs Bhakar and Arvinder gave evidence through an interpreter. Arvinder was not in the Bhakar house at the same time as Gina. She was brought up in India and she married Pardeep in India in August 2003, after Gina had left.[7]Hardeep’s and Pardeep’s younger brother Mandeep also made a statement which is in the bundle [147]. He too was unable to come to court to give evidence and I proceed on the basis that had he done so, his evidence would have been challenged on the same basis as that of other members of his family.[8]The other two witnesses from whom I heard oral evidence were:• Dhanalakshmi Kalimuthu, the Bhakars’ former maid ("Lakshmi").• Manjit Singh Mirgind, the man who (as I shall explain below) was instrumental in arranging the marriage between Gina and Hardeep. I regarded Mr Mirgind as the only wholly independent witness. He had provided witness statements for both firms of solicitors [109, 138]. Although one of these was not signed, he told me that this was an oversight and he confirmed the truth of it in the witness box. It was obvious to me that Mr Mirgind was in an awkward position. He would rather not have become involved, and I felt that he was reluctant to criticise anyone. The evidence which he gave is all the more valuable for his reticence.[9]The other evidence in the case consisted of :• A statement from Dr Baldev Kaur [104]. It was agreed that this would not be challenged on the basis that Paragraphs 7-10 were not relied on.• A short letter from Gina’s GP Dr Linda Chapman [150].• A report on Gina from a jointly instructed psychiatrist, Dr R Stocking Korzen [154]. The nature of the case[10]The claim as pleaded in the Amended Particulars of Claim [26] was in two parts, the first being a claim against both Mr and Mr Singh Bhakar for the return of certain chattels and/or damages. However, on 17/2/06 HH Judge Inglis gave permission to Gina to discontinue this claim and it did not proceed.[11]The second part of the claim was against Mrs Bhakar alone for damages (including aggravated damages) under the Protection from Harassment Act 1997 ("the Act"). Gina and Hardeep were married on 2/11/02. They then lived at the Bhakar family home at 59 Clayhall Avenue, Clayhall, Ilford, Essex IG5 0PW until the marriage came to an end on 2/3/03. Mr and Mrs Bhakar (and Hardeep’s brothers) were all living under the same roof. The nature of the claim is that during this period Mrs Bhakar conducted a campaign of harassment against Gina which had the effect of bringing the marriage to an end and causing serious health problems for her. My approach to the evidence[12]In considering the evidence I have had a number of matters in mind. First, some of the allegations made by Gina are not just serious but extreme in their nature. I have borne firmly in mind that the more serious the nature of an allegation, the more clear and cogent is the evidence required to substantiate it.[13]Secondly, I bear in mind that a witness who gives evidence through an interpreter is likely to be at a disadvantage in that they cannot express themselves in their own language to the court.[14]Thirdly, Mrs Bhakar said at a number of points while giving evidence that she takes strong medication for a back problem and that this affects her memory.[15]Fourthly, Gina’s case is that her mental and physical health suffered badly as a result of the harassment she claims to have suffered. It was suggested to me by Mr Anderson, counsel for Mrs Bhakar, that this might have affected the accuracy of her recollection.[16]Fifthly, Gina said at one point that she was bringing this action not just for herself but for other daughters in law. This has therefore been to some degree a campaign in her eyes. That is quite legitimate, but it is in my view a reason to be cautious about her evidence.[17]Sixthly the witness statements of the Defendants’ witnesses are regrettably short. They do not deal with a number of issues, and Mr Anderson had to examine his witnesses in chief to a greater extent than should have been necessary. From the Court’s perspective, there was no opportunity to check the oral evidence against written statements. I do not blame the Bhakars for this, as the responsibility was that of Mrs Bhakar’s solicitor to ensure that relevant issues were addressed. However, it has not helped my task.[18]Seventhly, the claim was not started until December 2004, 21 months after the events in question. The witness statements were prepared in April - May 2006. The trial was on 5-8/6/06, more than three years after the events. There is an obvious risk that the recollection of all witnesses may have suffered in the intervening period, particularly in relation to details. The delay was not anyone’s fault, and was due at least in part to problems over public funding. The facts: Up to the wedding[19]Gina left school at 16 and went to work in the Singh family clothing and fashion businesses. She rose to a managerial position and by 2002 she had considerable experience of the wider world. She is devout in her religious beliefs and this was reflected in the fact that she was one of the members of the congregation of the Temple she attended who had been invited to sing hymns during ceremonies. I was told that this is an honour which is accorded to those who are accepted as devout followers of the Sikh faith.[20]In early 2002 Gina was 22. She felt ready to marry. The evidence before me was that this is an age when a Sikh woman would be expected to start looking for a husband. Gina told me that she felt ready for marriage, in that she was mature enough to deal with the responsibilities which it entailed. Gina struck me as a serious and even earnest young woman, and I am quite clear that she would not have embarked on matrimony unless she felt ready for it; or with anything less than total commitment.[21]In early 2002 Hardeep was 25. There was an issue as to whether the Singhs were given his correct age, but I do not need to make any findings about that. He was also ready to marry. I make the same observation about him as about Gina. He was a rather serious and even earnest young man, and I am sure he would not have embarked on matrimony unless he felt mature and ready for it, or with anything less than total commitment.[22]In the Sikh community, as in various minority communities, it is customary for marriage introductions to be effected by a matchmaker or ‘middleman’ as he was sometimes referred to. The decision whether or not to marry is left to the couple, but in other senses the marriage is arranged by their families.[23]I found both Gina and Hardeep to be people who, while westernised in some respects, have a deep commitment to the traditions of their community. Neither of them minded in the least that a marriage would be arranged in the sense I have given. They expected this.[24]They also both knew that if they did get married, they would live with the Bhakar family. I am satisfied in particular that Gina knew this and had no objection. She regarded it as not merely inevitable but also appropriate. She came from a close family, but had travelled abroad and thus spent time away from her own home. She had no apprehension about the idea of living with her husband’s family. She told me, and I accept that she expected life to be similar to the life she knew at her own home. I also accept her evidence that she expected to remain in the Bhakar home if and when she and Hardeep had children.[25]Mr Mirgind is a matchmaker, though he is not paid for his services. The Singh and Bhakar families did not know each other but he knew both families. He heard that the Singhs were looking for a husband for Gina, and he raised this with Mr Bhakar. Both families felt the idea was worth pursuing.[26]In accordance with tradition, the first step was that the Singh family (without Gina) paid a call on the Bhakar family. This meeting went well. Mr Singh told me that he felt the families had much in common and got on well. Among other matters he felt that the two families had a comparable mix of westernisation and traditionalism.[27]The next step was for the Bhakars to visit the Singhs in Nottingham. This took place in about April 2002 and was the first occasion when Gina and Hardeep met. There is an issue as to whether they spent any, and if so, how much time alone together, either on this occasion or on the other two occasions before the wedding when they were both present at family functions.[28]Gina’s evidence was that on each of the three occasions they spent about two hours alone together. Hardeep’s evidence was that the only occasion when they spoke at all was on his family’s first visit to Nottingham, and that they were never alone then. Each version was supported by other members of the respective families.[29]I do not need to make a definite finding, but I suspect that on this issue Hardeep’s evidence is closer to the reality than Gina’s. I note that Mr Mirgind refers to them being chaperoned throughout the first meeting [139 #5]. However, I think it likely that at some point they did spend at least some limited time alone together. What matters is that, as I find, such meetings as they had were enough to satisfy them both that they were compatible and should marry. The facts: The marriage[30]The wedding took place on 1/11/02. It was a large occasion, with a total of about 400 guests. The first part was the ceremony at the Sikh Temple. There was then a reception at Blotts Country Club, Nottingham. After this the wedding party went to the Bhakars’ home for the ceremony known as Doli, in which the new bride takes formal leave of her own family.[31]There was some evidence about Mrs Bhakar’s behaviour on the wedding day. It was common ground that it is a Sikh tradition for family members and guests to touch the head of the bride on the wedding day. Mrs Singh says (and Mrs Bhakar denies) that Mrs Bhakar said that no one was to touch Gina’s head. In addition there was a point where Gina had sat on a chair in the Singhs’ kitchen. Mrs Singh says that Mrs Bhakar then insisted that no one but Gina should sit on that chair[32]These might seem small, even trivial matters. However, Mrs Bhakar’s religious and personal beliefs are an issue in the case. I shall make findings on these points when I come to deal with Mrs Bhakar’s behaviour and beliefs later.[33]It was common ground that another Sikh custom is that on the day after a wedding, the bride returns to her own family. This is known as the Harrfiar, and is part of the wedding festivities in that the bride’s family’s guests traditionally remain to see her return. There was some issue as to whether in modern times the bride’s Harrfiar visit still generally lasts (as it used to) for one to two weeks. The Singhs said that it did, the Bhakars that a day visit is quite normal nowadays.[34]On the day after the wedding the Bhakars telephoned the Singhs to say that the Harrfiar would not be happening that day, but the next; and that it would only be a day trip, Gina would not be staying behind. In the event Gina and the Bakhars arrived in the early evening of 3/11/02 and stayed only a short time: either two hours or rather more. The exact length of time does not matter, and I shall return later to deal with what I see as the significance of the brief Harrfiar.[35]Gina and Hardeep did not go on honeymoon. Mr Singh in particular tried to read something into this, but in my judgement, nothing should be read in. I am not satisfied either that the absence of a honeymoon was significant, or that it is a matter which Mrs Bhakar had anything to do with.[36]There was an issue over the number of occasions on which Gina visited Nottingham after the wedding. It was common ground that there were four such visits. The first was the Harrfiar. The second was when she and Hardeep visited for the day to collect wedding presents and dowry items. The third was to be a week long visit in December. However, two days into this visit Gina’s uncle Mukhtiar Singh died. The visit was cut short and she returned to Ilford.[37]The fourth visit was also agreed, but the circumstances were controversial. It was common ground that within Sikh tradition there is a festival called Lori which falls in mid-January. A newly-wed bride returns to her family on her own for a period which is normally two weeks over Lori.[38]The Singhs’ evidence was that they proposed a Lori visit in January 2003. Mrs Bhakar initially refused to allow any Lori visit to Nottingham. It was only when Mr Singh threatened to speak to someone who would speak to the Bhakar family elders that she backed down. Even then she only allowed a visit for one week. Mrs Bhakar’s evidence was that she made no objection to the Lori visit and that it was Gina’s choice that it was only for one week not two.[39]The evidence of the Bakhars was that a fifth visit took place in February 2003, and that Gina stayed in Nottingham for two weeks on that occasion. Gina and her family deny that any such visit took place. I shall make findings about the Lori visit and whether there was a fifth visit later.[40]There was an issue over the nature and extent of Hardeep’s employment at this time. It was common ground he worked in a nightclub three nights per week. Gina’s evidence was that he told her that in addition he worked in a family business. I do not need to resolve this issue because I am satisfied that whether or not he had a second job, Hardeep spent a lot of time away from the family home during the daytime. I accept Gina’s evidence about this.[41]During this period Pardeep had graduated and spent quite a lot of time away from home looking for a job. Mandeep was studying. Mr Bhakar had a business to run. There was thus a lot of time when Mrs Bhakar and Gina were alone in the house together.[42]It is Gina’s overall case that from the outset of married life Mrs Bhakar made her life a misery.

(a) of the Amended Particulars of Claim [29], which say:

"The Second Defendant bullied the Claimant and treated her in an unreasonable, unkind, hurtful and demeaning manner and deprived her of her personal liberty to an unacceptable degree as particularised in (b) to (v) below."
[43]Her detailed case is set out in the following sub-paragraphs [29 - 35]. The relevant parts of the Amended Defence are at 42-6. The allegations which I regard as important (and the responses to them) are summarised in the following section of this Judgement. My findings will appear at a later point.[44]Housework. Mrs Bhakar made her do excessive and unnecessary housework. Gina’s evidence (supported by her mother) was that she was used to doing housework at home and expected to do her share as a married woman. However, Mrs Bhakar’s demands were wholly unreasonable, often requiring unnecessary and/or demeaning work (such as cleaning toilets without a brush) to be done. Gina summarises this part of her case at #9 of her witness statement [65] by saying:
"I say specifically that my mother in law had contrived a work routine designed to exhaust and humiliate me."
[45]In addition Gina says that she was made to get up at 6.30 each morning to perform her chores, though such early rising was unnecessary and was an additional pointless imposition.[46]Mrs Bhakar’s pleaded response to that is that the housework was done by Lakshmi and herself. Gina was not expected to do much and in fact did little or nothing. She never did any cleaning, did not cook on a regular basis, and only did her own ironing. In her oral evidence Mrs Bhakar said that Gina did no housework and got up at 8-9 a.m.[47]The hair cut. In the Amended Particulars of Claim Gina alleged that some weeks after the wedding Mrs Bhakar coerced her into having her hair cut against her wishes. She had never had her hair cut: none of the women in her family had. Her hair was so long that it reached the top of her legs (see the photographs at 75). It was for her an important religious obligation never to cut her hair.[48]However, Mrs Bhakar bullied her into coming to a hairdresser where her hair was cut to shoulder length. She was treated in a humiliating manner at the hairdresser and again when she returned to the Bhakar home; she was made to display her cut hair and was told she looked like a poodle.[49]In her pleaded response Mrs Bhakar said that Gina’s hair had been short since before the marriage. However, in her oral evidence Mrs Bhakar (supported by Hardeep) said that while Gina had indeed had her hair cut, this was a decision of hers and Hardeep’s, and nothing to do with Mrs Bhakar.[50]Use of the telephone . Gina’s case was that as part of an overall wish to isolate her Mrs Bhakar restricted her use of the telephone. She was only allowed to make one call each week to her family and to receive one call. Her part in any incoming calls was monitored by a member of the family standing beside her. Mrs Bhakar caused Hardeep to take her mobile phone away from her. Messages left by her family were not passed on to her.[51]Although this allegation was completely denied in the Amended Defence, it was accepted to a limited extent in the oral evidence of the Bhakar family. It was said that Gina’s family called on an excessive number of occasions and that this often interrupted the Bhakar family’s evening meal. They therefore asked for some reduction in the level of incoming calls.[52]Isolation. It was Gina’s case that she was never allowed out of the Bhakar house alone. If she needed any shopping, she had to make out a list and items would be bought for her. She did not have a key to the house. She left the house only when she was taken to a number of Bhakar family functions and made a number of visits home as set out above. She was allowed to go to the Temple on a couple of occasions.[53]She was not even allowed to open the kitchen door or usually to take the rubbish out. She was not allowed to register with a local GP, although she needed treatment for her hands, which had become infected because of the housework she was required to do. She did not go out as a couple with Hardeep. She was not allowed to attend the funeral of her uncle Mukhtiar (see above) although this took place close to Ilford and Mr and Mrs Bhakar themselves attended it. She was not even allowed to attend the Temple regularly.[54]On one occasio n she was allowed to go to a family function at her uncle’s house in London. She only stayed a short time, but when she returned she was told off and told that she would not be seeing her family any more. In addition she found that Mrs Bhakar had gone through all her belongings.[55]A further aspect of this was that she was not allowed to watch television, listen to the radio or read newspapers; except sometimes to watch Indian dancing and music. She was so isolated that she did not know the war in Iraq was breaking out.[56]Before the wedding the Singhs had been assured that Gina would be allowed to work outside the home, as she had for the previous six years. However, since she was largely confined to the house she did not think it was worth raising this issue. She took it for granted that she would not be allowed to work.[57]All these allegations were denied by the Bhakars. Their evidence was that Gina had complete freedom of movement and could watch or listen to what she wanted. She and Hardeep went out together regularly. Mrs Bhakar did not tell her off for having seen her family; or tell her this would not be allowed again; or go through her belongings. It was Gina’s mother who expressed a wish that she and Hardeep should not attend the funeral as this was inappropriate for newly-weds. Gina could have worked if she had wished to do so.[58]Mandeep. Gina’s case was that Mrs Bhakar stood by while Mandeep behaved unpleasantly towards her in various ways. However, it is not alleged that Mrs Bhakar positively encouraged Mandeep in this conduct - just that it was done with her knowledge and acquiescence. In my Judgement any actions of Mandeep’s could only be blamed on Mrs Bhakar if she had actively encouraged them. Particularly since Mandeep was unable to come to court to give oral evidence because he was unwell, I make no findings about his conduct and I ignore these allegations.[59]Food. Gina’s case was that although she was required to prepare food for herself and members of the family, at least most of the time she was required to eat food which had been brought home from a restaurant owned by the Bhakar family. This food was often stale, having been frozen and re-heated more than once. She was unable to eat the food, she lost weight and could not sleep at night because of hunger pains. However Gina accepted in her witness statement [71 #35] that the food she was given was the same as other members of the family (apart from Mrs Bhakar) were expected to eat.[60]The Bhakars denied this, saying that fresh food was available for all the family, including Gina, at all times. The cooking was very largely done by Mrs Bhakar. Hardeep said in evidence that his mother was the chef and the family liked her cooking.[61]The locket. Gina’s case was that shortly after the wedding she and Hardeep were taken by Mrs Bhakar to a house in Forest Gate, east London, where a woman took them into a room with many Hindu statues and posters. Some kind of ritual took place in which the woman ‘fiddled with some beads’ in front of a Hindu image. She then put the beads into a gold locket which Mrs Bhakar gave her, and which bore some kind of Hindu symbol on it; neither Gina nor her family were able to specify what this symbol was.[62]The woman put the locket around Gina’s neck and Mrs Bhakar later said that she must always wear it. Mrs Bhakar knew or should have known that such a practice was entirely outside Sikh tradition and that it was abhorrent to a religious Sikh such as Gina. Gina had no idea of the purpose of either the ritual or the locket itself, but she regarded the whole business as a superstitious practice alien to her beliefs and frightening.[63]Mrs Bhakar and Hardeep denied all knowledge of this. They knew of no such locket or of the address in Forest Gate where the incident is said to have occurred.[64]The knives. Gina says that on one occasion when she was changing the sheets on her bed, she found two bread knives under the mattress, one on each side of the bed. She believed that Mrs Bhakar must have put them there as part of her superstitious practices. Mrs Bhakar denied all knowledge of the knives. The facts: The breakdown of the marriage[65]Mr Singh’s evidence was that his concerns for Gina in the Bhakar household started from the day of the wedding. Mrs Bhakar’s behaviour that day seemed strange to him. After the wedding the restrictions on telephone contact and Gina’s manner on the occasions when they met caused increasing concern.[66]On an occasion in December 2002 he visited the Bhakars, deliberately giving only minimal notice so that his visit could not be frustrated. He was made to wait for an hour before Gina appeared, though he was treated in a civil manner. When Gina appeared he saw short hair for the first time. He said in oral evidence that ‘the shock was devastating’. Gina looked pale, subdued and withdrawn.[67]He was allowed to take Gina out shopping, but he found her behaviour worrying. She had changed significantly in the weeks since the wedding. She asked for lots of small packets of sweets which she could hide and eat when she was hungry. When they got back to the house, he was surprised to find that Gina had no key and did not know how to get in.[68]This visit increased the level of Mr Singh’s concern and he tried to enlist Mr Mirgind’s help. As a friend of the Bhakar family and as the matchmaker, he could go to see the Bhakars at any time. I got the impression that a matchmaker has a degree of continuing responsibility after the wedding, if only because he is liable to be criticised by one or both families if things go wrong.[69]Mr Mirgind’s evidence was that he did visit the Bhakars about once each week. He would see Gina doing housework. At first he was not concerned for her welfare, but Mr Singh told him of his own increasing concerns. On one occasion Hardeep and Mrs Bhakar suggested that he have a word with her in private: the first such occasion. They went into another room and Gina told him that she was unhappy about her excessive domestic workload.[70]In particular Gina said how unhappy she was about having had her hair cut. Mr Mirgind says in his statement that Gina ‘was very upset, and this was obvious, though she did not cry in my presence’ [111 #11]. From this time he became seriously concerned about her, and I believe that these concerns were passed on to the Singhs.[71]Mr and Mrs Singh and Jaskaren (who visited) were all very concerned about Gina during the Lori visit in January 2003. They all describe how she was weak, quiet and subdued. Mrs Singh saw Gina’s short hair for the first time and was shocked. Gina told her of some of her problems living in the Bhakar household and her mother was worried.[72]Matters came to a head on the morning of Sunday 2/3/03. Mr Singh was at the gym. Mr Bhakar telephoned and spoke to Mrs Singh. According to her he did not even introduce himself but simply said "Come and take your daughter". She called Mr Singh who came home from the gym and immediately set off for Ilford.[73]Mr Singh’s evidence was that he went to the Bhakar home with the definite intention of taking Gina away with him once and for all. He telephoned Mr Mirgind and arranged to meet him outside the Bhakar home. They went in together and again waited for an hour before Gina came down. During this time, Mr and Mrs Bhakar were telling the two men about Gina’s shortcomings, namely that she wan not working hard enough; she was too slow; she did not listen; she gave Mrs Bhakar a dirty look.[74]They went on to say that henceforth the Singh family were to ring Gina no more than once every two weeks and that she would be allowed to make a call every two weeks. She would only be allowed to visit Nottingham for a total of seven days each year and the Singhs should "in future pick your days carefully". Mr Singh said that he listened to all the Bhakars had to say, while remaining non-committal.[75]When Gina came down Mr Singh said that he was taking her back to Nottingham and would get her mother to speak to her. Mr Bhakar said she must be back by Tuesday; Mrs Bhakar said she did not need to go at all. Mr Singh said that he would bring her back, but made it clear in his oral evidence that he had not meant this. He said that when he and Gina left, the only person who came outside to say goodbye was Hardeep.[76]The Bhakars version of the events of 2/3/03 was quite different. Mr Bhakar said that he called the Singhs, but that what he said to Mrs Singh was "We have a problem here at home. Please come and sort out the problem." The reason for the call was that Gina had called Mrs Bhakar a bitch, and Mrs Bhakar was very upset. This allegation does not feature in Mr Bhakar’s statement and no doubt for that reason was not put to Gina. However, I have made it clear that the Bhakars’ witness statements are defective in various respects, and I do not hold this against Mr Bhakar.[77]Mr Bhakar denied that he and his wife had either made the complaints set out above or laid down restrictions on Gina’s rights to use of the telephone or visits. His approach was to ask Mr Singh to ask Gina what the problem was: and specifically which members of the family were a problem. He, Mrs Bhakar and Hardeep all said that they were expecting Gina to return.[78]Gina never returned to the Bhakars’ home. However, it is common ground that she was reluctant to accept that the marriage was at an end; and that on one occasion a few days after 2/3/03 she telephone Hardeep to tell him this. The facts: Since 2nd March 2003[79]The Bhakars and Lakshmi all said that they noticed nothing significantly wrong with Gina in the period before 2/3/03. They said she was subject to dramatic mood swings but they saw no mental or physical deterioration.[80]The evidence of the Singh family is in marked contrast. I have already summarised Mr Singh’s evidence about his mounting level of concern during the four months of the marriage; this was supported by his wife and by Jaskaren. The evidence of all three was that on her return to Nottingham on 2/3/03 Gina was in a very bad way. While seeking to cast doubt on this evidence, the Bhakars were in no position to challenge it.[81]The gist of the Singhs’ evidence about Gina’s condition on her return home can be summarised in non-medical language by saying that she suffered a physical and mental breakdown. She would not get out of bed. She was seriously underweight but had to be forced to eat and drink. She had completely lost her former liveliness and took no interest in anything.[82]The evidence of Gina’s uncle and aunts is striking. As Gina’s Uncle Steven put it "She was drained, weak and not at all her old self" [95 #5]. He said in his oral evidence that he was so concerned he booked Gina into a health farm. However, she was too weak and lacking in confidence to be able to go.[83]Jaskaren said "She appeared and behaved as though drugged. She hardly spoke. She would not eat." [98 #12]. Surinder said that she was completely changed. She was very withdrawn and would not go to the Temple with the family: "I observed a very real personality change in Gina" [102 #12-13].[84]Mrs Singh said that she had to help Gina into the bath. She also says that she and Jaskaren were very worried about her and feared that she might self-harm. One of them remained with Gina at all times. She was always crying. Both Mr and Mrs Singh agree that she had suffered a real personality change.[85]During this period Mrs Singh and Jaskaren became aware of the locket. Gina refused to take it off even when she was in the bath. In due course the story of how Gina had come by the locket and what Mrs Bhakar had said about not taking it off emerged.[86]The evidence of Mr and Mrs Singh and Jaskaren was that they were profoundly concerned about this. They regarded the locket and the circumstances of its acquisition as superstition tantamount to black magic. It made them very uncomfortable. They felt that something had to be done beyond merely disposing of the locket when they eventually prevailed upon Gina to take it off.[87]Accordingly Mr Singh made enquiries which led him to the address in Forest Gate where Gina had acquired the locket. He drove down to London in order to return the locket to its source. He gave the woman £50. Mr Singh did not strike me as a gullible or superstitious person. On the contrary, he is a robust businessman and a practising Sikh. The way in which he felt it necessary to deal with the locket seems very striking to me. The medical evidence[88]In spite of their concerns abut Gina, her family did not take her to a doctor for some six months after her return. This is naturally a matter which Mr Anderson relies on. However I am satisfied, having seen Mrs Singh and Jaskaren give evidence, that they believed for some time that Gina’s condition was one which could and should be dealt with within the family. They were hesitant to see it as a medical problem. Taking Gina to a doctor was almost a last resort.[89]There is a short letter from Dr Linda Chapman, the GP whom Gina eventually saw on 22/9/03 [150]. Gina said to her that she had been treated like a slave and not fed properly at the Bhakars; and that since her return she had been crying, had had poor sleep, poor appetite and total loss of self esteem. Dr Chapman commented that the breakdown of the marriage was obviously a disaster for her within her own culture.[90]Gina saw Dr Chapman again on 1/10/03. She was prescribed sleeping pills. Dr Chapman’s letter is dated 10/10/03 and she said that she would keep a fairly close eye on Gina "because I felt that she was quite seriously traumatised and depressed by her experience". She felt that Gina would need at least six months treatment.[91]Gina was interviewed by Dr R. Stocking Korzen on 21/3/06. The joint letter of instruction is at 151 and the Report at 154. Dr Stocking Korzen was asked to provide a professional opinion on the following five matters:((a) Does Ms Gina Singh exhibit the symptoms of psychiatric disorder or damage as pleaded in the Particulars of Injury as set out in her Particulars of Claim?(b) If the symptoms of psychiatric disorder are present or in my opinion have been present, whether he could provide an indication of the severity and progress of the disorder(s) and provide a prognosis.(c) The extent to which if at all the symptoms exhibited may have been or continue to be debilitating in relation to Gina Singh’s day to day life activities, employment etc.(d) Whether any findings of psychiatric or psychological disorder are consistent with the allegations made by Ms Gina Singh.(e) An indication of the appropriate or likely treatment.[92]Dr Stocking Korzen was naturally well aware that he had only heard one side of the story and that Gina had a clear stake in his conclusions [161 #10]. However, he found her account consistent with the written material with which he had been provided and he found no grounds for suspicion.[93]Dr Stocking Korzen’s answers to the questions put to him were in summary as follows:((a) Gina suffered a constellation of enduring symptoms which satisfied the criteria for Moderate Depressive Episode. She did not fulfil the criteria for Post Traumatic Stress Disorder.(b) An exact prognosis is impossible. There is a risk of Gina developing chronicity. The prognosis is only moderately positive. A crucial question was whether Gina would be willing to engage in formal psychotherapy and if necessary, a continuous trial of antidepressant medication.(c) On the balance of the available information Gina has suffered debilitating disabilities as a result of a psychiatric disorder. She has failed to resume the employment which she had before her marriage because of her symptoms of depression. Her cultural feelings of shame have been made worse by her depression.(d) In all likelihood the failed marriage is a significant factor in the development of her depressive disorder.(e) Appropriate treatment would be psychological treatment with or without antidepressant medication. (I add that in the witness box Gina said that she would try to engage in any therapy which was recommended.). The present position[94]A Decree Absolute in respect of the marriage was made on 24/3/04. Hardeep has married again: this time to an Indian bride.[95]Gina’s present position is largely reflected in Dr Stocking Korzen’s Report. She is still living with her parents. She started on antidepressant medication in 2003 but gave it up. She has recently started again. Her GP is looking for a therapist or counsellor for her. She has tried to resume employment in family businesses. She has managed a total of 3-4 weeks by way of odd days.[96]Gina described herself as a fighter. She said that she would rather work, and indeed get back to the level of responsibility which she had before her marriage. She will keep trying. However, when it was put to her that the end of the litigation would be likely to have a beneficial effect, she said that it might, but that the events of 2002-3 would always be in the back of her mind. Nevertheless she said in her oral evidence that she does expect to marry again. My findings[97]It will be apparent that there were numerous issues of fact in this case. I have made findings in respect of some of these above. However, I have deferred my findings on what I regard as the crucial issues until a point where the whole history of the case has been set out.[98]Many of the issues in the case might in principle be susceptible to an analysis which emphasised the difference in honest perceptions of the same events by different participants. Such an analysis is likely to lead to conclusions which reduce or even eliminate the ostensib le polarisation of the different accounts. I have in mind issues such as the use of the telephone and the restrictions on Gina’s freedom of movement which, if taken by themselves, might lend themselves to this sort of compromise approach.[99]However, there are also in my judgement certain critical issues which do not lend themselves to this approach. The clearest examples are the hair cut and the locket: it seems to me inescapable that one set of witnesses or the other is lying about these matters, and it is my duty to make findings accordingly. I also think that the severity of Gina’s condition after 2/3/03 requires an explanation for which appropriate findings are needed.[100]The hair cut. In almost any other circumstances it would seem strange and even bizarre that the circumstances in which a young woman had her hair cut should acquire such significance. However, in my judgement the context of this case requires a close focus on this issue.[101]My starting point is that I accept that Gina is a religious person who takes seriously the requirement of her religion not to cut her hair ever. This obligation was reinforced by the fact that (as I find) there was a family tradition: none of the women have ever cut their hair.[102]Hardeep’s evidence was that he had suggested to Gina that she have her hair cut and Gina agreed. Mr Anderson suggested to me that perhaps this was the true position, but that Gina regretted her actions afterwards and sought to blame Mrs Bhakar when in reality it was she who had betrayed her religious obligations and family tradition.[103]I reject Hardeep’s evidence and Mr Anderson’s suggestion. I am completely satisfied that Gina would not have cut her hair willingly. I accept her evidence that she was coerced into this. I am reinforced in this by the fact that Gina told Mr Mirgind about the hair cut and that she was visibly upset about it. Mrs Bhakar overbore Gina’s will.[104]I also find that Mrs Bhakar was aware that Gina did not want this. She knew that it was abhorrent on religious and traditional ground s, and anyway Gina made it clear she did not want her hair cut.[105]I further find that Mrs Bhakar made Gina show her short hair to family members, knowing that this would be acutely humiliating for her. I am driven to the conclusion that the purpose of requiring the hair to be cut and then displayed was to humiliate Gina: to be cruel to her. I can see no other plausible explanation.[106]Gina said in her oral evidence that Mrs Bhakar "tortured and degraded me by cutting my hair when she knew I was religious. She did this to make my life miserable." I reject the word torture, but I find that in other respects this was a fair assessment. Gina also said (and I accept) that Mrs Bhakar threatened to have it cut even shorter next time.[107]I mention in passing that in Gina’s witness statement and in her oral evidence she said that after the hair had been cut Mrs Bhakar put dye on her hair to lighten it and put bleach on her face to lighten that. However, these allegations do not appear in the Particulars of Claim, even though these were amended as recently as February 2006.[108]I am therefore not prepared to treat these allegations as separate heads of claim. However, I find that Gina’s account is correct. I reject Hardeep’s evidence that Gina chose to dye her hair, and I emphatically reject Mrs Bhakar’s oral evidence that Gina bleached her own skin and blamed it on her. These matters go to credit in relation to the hair cut and generally.[109]The locket. I also accept Gina’s evidence about this. I found Mrs Bhakar’s and Hardeep’s denials of all knowledge unconvincing and I was impressed by the strength of the reaction to the locket on the part of the Singh family when they learned of its provenance.[110]I find that Mrs Bhakar must have known that for a religious Sikh such as Gina it was deeply offensive to have to wear a locket which either reflected the practices of another religion or else was pure superstition. Gina says [72] and I accept that the Sikh religion excludes reliance on charms.[111]In her oral evidence Gina described herself as ‘shell-shocked’ by this matter. I accept that, particularly bearing in mind that older members of her family also had such a strong reaction. Gina says in her witness statement that the locket frightened her [72]. I accept both that that was the case and that Mrs Bhakar probably knew and certainly ought to have known that it would.[112]I find support for my conclusion about the locket in the oral evidence about Mrs Bhakar’s religious beliefs. Gina’s evidence was that one of the rooms in the Bhakar home had in effect been turned into a Hindu shrine; and that Mrs Bhakar urged her to worship in this room every day. She went so far as to say that Mrs Bhakar tried to convert her into a Hindu.[113]Although I find that the allegation of trying to convert her was an exaggeration, I also find that there was much truth in what Gina said about this. Once again, it does not feature in the Amended Particulars of Claim, and I therefore do not treat it as a separate head of claim. However, it helps me to establish the truth about the locket.[114]Mr Mirgind’s evidence was that the Bhakars attend both Sikh and Hindu Temples [110 #4]. Mrs Bhakar denied this, but I accept Mr Mirgind’s evidence. Mrs Bhakar agreed in cross-examination that she was not wearing a kara, the bangle which all Sikhs are obliged to wear. She said that she took it off because she has her arm massaged because she has arthritis. That does not explain why she does not put the kara back on after each massage.[115]However, Lakshmi gave evidence that there were no Hindu images anywhere in the house. Lakshmi was superficially a plausible witness, and since she is a Hindu she would not be shocked at Hindu images. However, Lakshmi’s credibility was undermined. She had said that she remained in regular employment with the Bhakars until late 2003, and that she had continued to work for them on and off until very recently.[116]After Lakshmi had given evidence, Arvinder went into the witness box; she had not been in court for any of the preceding evidence. She said that she had heard of Lakshmi but that Lakshmi had not worked for the family since she had married Pardeep in August 2003. She had never met Lakshmi. I prefer Arvinder’s evidence and I therefore find that (for whatever reason) Lakshmi was willing to tell an untruth which cannot have been inadvertent.[117]I regard her evidence as a whole with grave suspicion. This is reinforced by her oral evidence that nothing about Gina’s condition caused her concern. This was the Bhakar family line, but I find that by 2/3/03 Gina’s condition was so serious that no honest observer could have failed to notice a serious deterioration.[118]In all the circumstances I accept Gina’s evidence that there was a room in the Bhakar home where Hindu images were displayed and that Mrs Bhakar mixes elements of Hindu and/or other practices with her Sikh faith. I accept the evidence of the Singhs about Mrs Bhakar’s behaviour on the day of the wedding (see above) and this too suggests to me that Mrs Bhakar departs from orthodox Sikh beliefs and customs in some respects. These findings eliminate any element of improbability which there might otherwise have been in the idea of Mrs Bhakar giving Gina a locket with Hindu symbols on it.[119]The other issues: general observations . My findings about the hair cut and the locket greatly ease my task in establishing the truth about the other issues. In general terms I find Gina’s allegations are substantiated, though I also find that an element of exaggeration has found its way (probably not consciously) into some parts of her evidence. I make the following findings about the witnesses whom I have not already assessed.[120]Gina. Although I adopt a cautious approach to her evidence for reasons already given, Gina was an impressive young woman. She gave evidence about a profound ly traumatic episode in her life in a straightforward way. She gave credit where it was due: in particular she exonerated Hardeep from blame, saying that he could not stand up to his mother, and that there was no problem between her and Hardeep in matters which Mrs Bhakar was not involved with.[121]However, this itself gave rise to a problem with Gina’s evidence. In the course of cross-examination her Divorce Petition was put to her: it is at 165. It is much more critical of Hardeep, alleging that he was a party to the maltreatment she suffered at the hands of other family members. This is the matter which has caused me the most serious misgivings about Gina’s evidence.[122]However, I have in the end concluded that her credibility is not undermined by the fact that she made allegations in other proceedings which in effect she withdrew in this action. The strength of the impression which she made in the witness box and my assessment of the evidence as a whole outweigh this discrepancy.[123]Other members of the Singh family. I take Mr and Mrs Singh, Steven and Jaskaren together. They were all impressive witnesses. I found no reason to doubt any part of their evidence, and I accept it. At the end of his evidence Mr Singh volunteered an apology for having become emotiona l at times. However, I conclude that his displays of emotion were quite moderate and that they stemmed from a sense of indignation (which I can understand) at the way in which his daughter had been treated.[124]Mrs Bhakar. I find that Mrs Bhakar’s evidence was riddled with untruth and evasion. While giving evidence she said at various points of difficulty (such as what was said on 2/3/03) that she could no longer remember what had happened. At other points she was evasive: for instance when asked whether it was against the Sikh religion for a woman to cut her hair, she simply did not answer the question.[125]Even making every appropriate allowance, she was a deeply unimpressive witness. She said in her oral evidence:
"I take a very strong medicine and I try not to think about what has happened in the past."
[126]It is not strictly necessary for me to make findings about why she behav[125]ed as she did towards Gina. However, in a case where clear and cogent evidence is required, I would be troubled if I felt I had no understanding of her motivation. As matters stand, I do not feel able to make definite findings about this, but I believe that although the following observations are to some degree speculative, they provide at least a possible and perhaps a probable explanation.[127]Mrs Bhakar was born and brought up in India. Although she has now been in England for 30 years, until recently she spoke no English (she is now learning). She has no daughters. I think she was anxious at the prospect of having a daughter in law who had been born and brought up in England; who spoke English as a first language and understood English life and culture; and who had spent several years in the workplace. Gina is a person of strong character and I think that for all these reasons Mrs Bhakar felt that her dominance of the domestic aspects of home life, her own domain, was threatened.[128]Accordingly she decided that it was necessary from the outset to show who was in charge. In order to do this she decided that Gina had to be kept as isolated as possible and be made to perform housework which was not just onerous but without real purpose. This was meant to be a form of discipline. The intention to isolate Gina from the outset is supported by Gina’s evidence (which I accept) that on her arrival at the Bhakar home after the wedding she was not allowed to take her own suitcase upstairs but was required to wear clothes supplied by Mrs Bhakar.[129]Gina also said, and I accept that from the outset she tried to treat the Bhakars as her own family. However, every time she tried to get close to Mrs Bhakar she was rebuffed. This was why she wanted to be able to turn to her own family, but was not allowed that either.[130]I do not think that Mrs Bhakar initially intended to be cruel to Gina. However, I suspect that she soon saw that her programme of discipline was not working and she decided to step it up. I think that this accounts for the deliberate cruelty of the hair cut and the decision to frighten Gina with the locket. By that stage she either did not know how or did not wish to reestablish the relationship on a different and better basis, though I believe that Gina would have welcomed this at any stage until the end of the marriage - and even afterwards.[131]This hypothesis about Mrs Bhakar’s motivation would also explain why:((a) Pardeep’s wife Arvinder and Hardeep’s second wife were both found for them in India.(b) Arvinder has developed a close relationship with Mrs Bhakar: Mrs Bhakar never saw her as a likely threat. The other side of that coin is that since Mrs Bhakar has been able to create a good relationship with Arvinder, she could have done so with Gina if she had chosen.[132]Mr Singh said in his oral evidence that:
"There is no doubt in my mind that [Mrs Bhakar] was trying to drive [Gina] down mentally and physically."
I am inclined to agree.[133]Mr Bhakar. Mr Bhakar gave an impression as a genial and straightforward man. However, I do not believe he was ignorant of wha t was happening in his own home. Although he was not an active participant in the cruelty to Gina, he stood by and watched it happen. It follows that much of his evidence was also deliberately false.[134]The falsity of his evidence is in my judgement made worse by the explanations he has sought to give for Gina’s subsequent conduct. In his witness statement he said [136 #4]:
"I am shocked by the allegations made by Gina and I can only believe that she is making the same to bolster her social standing and assuage her own guilt for the breakdown of the marriage."
[135]In his oral evidence Mr Bhakar was asked why he thought Gina was making these allegations. He said:
"As far as I know, they (i.e. the Singh family) are very greedy. This case has been put together to get money off my family. They think I am a millionaire."
[136]In view of my findings, it is hard to say which of these alternative explanations is more unpleasant and hurtful, or which puts Mr Bhakar in a more discreditable light. I not only reject both utterly, but shall return to them in the context of the measure of damages. I found it telling that when Mr Bhakar was asked in cross-examination what he regarded as Gina’s good points, he was unable to find any.[137]Hardeep. Hardeep came across as a thoroughly nice young man. I accept Gina’s assessment that when he is not under the thumb of his mother, he is a nice person. However, although I have some sympathy for his position in these proceedings, the fact remains that he was unable to depart from the family line. He thereby told a large number of deliberate untruths.[138]Pardeep. Pardeep also came across as a thoroughly nice young man. I believe his evidence that he welcomed Gina into the house, and that he was pleased to have a sister at last. The events which occurred were even more beyond his control than they were beyond Hardeep’s. Mr Singh’s impression was that Pardeep was embarrassed about what was happening with Gina.[139]But he too was unable to depart from the family line. I reject his evidence where it conflicts with Gina’s. He also changed his evidence on one matter which, though not important in itself was in my judgement revealing. In his witness statement he said that Gina "would take anything up to three hours for her bath and then spend further time on her makeup and getting dressed" [142-3 #2].[140]This was clearly intended to counter Gina’s case that she was given excessive housework. He was portraying her as a lady of leisure. However, it was pointed out to him in cross-examination that the bathroom which Gina used did not have a bath, and that it was unlikely that anyone would spend three hours in a shower. He then said that he had meant to say that Gina took three hours in all. But Pardeep’s English is perfect and his statement is absolutely clear. He was trimming his evidence. My findings on other issues[141]Housework. I accept the thrust of Gina’s case that she was made to do housework which was not merely excessive but pointless and demeaning. I find that this was a course of action on the part of Mrs Bhakar which extended throughout the four months which Gina spent under her roof and which she intended to be humiliating.[142]Gina said that she was treated like a slave and while I would not use such language myself, I find that that is not much of an exaggeration. This is against a background where Gina was quite used to doing her share of the housework in her own family home, while also working full time. She is far from being lazy and she very much wanted to make a success of her new situation in life. It was deliberately made impossible for her to do so.[143]I accept Gina’s evidence that she was allowed to use rubber gloves, but was not allowed to use a brush to clean the toilet; and that when she was mopping floors, she had to squeeze the dirty water out of the mop by hand. As a result she developed an infection in her hands, but she was not allowed to get medical treatment.[144]There was an issue about the number of hours which Lakshmi worked. The Bhakars (and Lakshmi herself) said she worked 4-5 hours per day, six days per week; Gina said 2½ hours per day, 3-4 days per week. I find that Gina’s account is much closer to the reality, especially bearing in mind that Mrs Bhakar was able to dispense with Lakshmi’s help entirely when Arvinder came on the scene. However, Lakshmi’s hours are not important since I find that Mrs Bhakar was largely requiring Gina to do work which was unnecessary, or in Gina’s own word ‘contrived’.[145]Use of the telephone . Gina’s account is supported by members of her family and I accept it in its entirety. This was part of a deliberate programme intended by Mrs Bhakar to keep Gina isolated which in turn was part of the wider campaign to bring her to heel.[146]The significance of the restrictions on using the telephone was not just that Gina could not make or receive calls freely. It was also that messages from her family were not passed on to her and that there was always someone listening in to what she said during telephone calls. This must have been both highly restrictive and also intimidating.[147]In contrast to Mrs Bhakar’s conduct in this respect, Mr Singh said, and I accept that when his son was married, his new daughter in law was bombarded with phone calls - and that he was pleased that she had so many friends and family, especially when she was settling in.[148]Isolation. I accept that Gina was by and large required to remain in the house, that she was not allowed to go out on her own, and that she was not allowed to watch television news or read newspapers. I regard the brevity of the Harrfiar visit and the reluctance to allow a Lori visit (and then to limit it) as part of the overall plan to keep Gina confined in the Bhakars’ house as much as possible.[149]I accept that she was prohibited from going to her uncle’s funeral and that this was very upsetting. Nevertheless I find that Gina did in fact get out of the house rather more than she now recalls. For example, I find it unlikely that she and Hardeep never went out alone together.[150]However, I also accept that subjectively Gina felt that she was treated like a prisoner: and that this was what Mrs Bhakar wanted her to feel. I accept that she was not allowed to go shopping alone for her personal requirements, and that this was a particularly objectionable constraint. I find that there were only four, not five visits home to Nottingham.[151]Gina was not even allowed to use her own bedroom as a refuge. She was told not to use it except when she was getting dressed or changed, and at night.[152]Food. I find that Gina’s evidence about the cooking arrangements was exaggerated. I cannot accept, as Gina suggested, that Mrs Bhakar did little cooking. I am satisfied that she saw her role as the family chef as part of her life. It was probably the case that food was frozen and re-heated more often than Gina was used to or approved of, and also that Gina did not like much of the food she was served.[153]However, I do not accept that food was used as part of the campaign against her. Indeed Gina says in her witness statement that the food she was given was basically the same as other members of the family (other than Mrs Bhakar) ate. My conclusions about food do not affect my overall conclusion on the issue of housework.[154]The knives under the bed. There is no direct evidence that Mrs Bhakar was responsible for putting the knives under the mattress, let alone what the purpose of this might have been. I do not find this allegation proved.[155]The circumstances of Gina’s departure . I accept Mr Singh’s version of what occurred on 2/3/03.[156]The cause of Gina’s illness. It must already be plain that I attribute the condition in which Gina was after 2/3/03 to the maltreatment she had suffered at the hands of Mrs Bhakar. Having heard the evidence in full, I do not need to exercise the same caution as Dr Stocking Korzen rightly did. When the Bhakars were each asked in cross-examination what they thought the cause of the problems might have been, they said that Gina suffered mood swings and that any problems were her own fault. They did not accept that Gina was ill when she left. I find it hard to believe they were unaware of her deteriorating condition. The law[157]The relevant parts of the Act provide as follows:- "1(1) A person must not pursue a course of conduct -. (a) which amounts to harassment of another, and. . (b) which he knows or ought to know amounts to harassment of the other. . (2)For the purposes of this section, the person whose course of conduct is in question ought to know that it amounts to or involves harassment of another if a reasonable person in possession of the same information would think that the course of conduct amounted to or involved harassment of the other. 3 (1) An actual or apprehended breach of section 1(1) may be the subject of a claim in civil proceedings by the person who is or may be the victim of the course of conduct in question.(2) On such a claim, damages may be awarded for (among other things) any anxiety caused by the harassment and any financial loss resulting from the harassment. 7 (1)This section applies for the interpretation of sections 1 to 5. (2) References to harassing a person include alarming the person or causing the person distress.(3) A "course of conduct" must involve -. (a) in the case of conduct in relation to a single person (see section 1(1)), conduct on at least two occasions in relation to that person …. .(4) "Conduct" includes speech.".[158]There is no definition of harassment in the Act, though some help is to be found in S7. I was helpfully referred to the Judgement of May LJ in Majrowski v Guy’s and St Thomas’s NHS Trust [2005] 2 WLR 1503 . At #82 May LJ cites the Judgement of Lord Phillips of Worth Maltravers MR in Thomas v News Group Newspapers Ltd [2002] EMLR 78, #30, where it was said:
"The Act does not attempt to define the type of conduct which that is capable of constituting harassment. ‘Harassment’ is, however, a word which has a meaning which is generally understood. It describes conduct targeted at an individual which is calculated to produce the consequences described in section 7 and which is oppressive and unreasonable."
[159]May LJ went on to say in #82:
"The conduct has also to be calculated, in an objective sense, to cause distress and has to be oppressive and unreasonable. It has to be conduct which the perpetrator knows or ought to know amounts to harassment, and conduct which a reasonable person would think amounted to harassment."
[160]In #83 May LJ cautioned against too wide an approach to harassment. He pointed out that the Act provides three remedies: criminal prosecution, injunction and an action for damages. A criminal prosecution plainly has penal consequences and an injunction potentially so. The nature of the conduct which can give rise to each of the three remedies is the same. The penal or quasi-penal nature of the other remedies should colour the court’s approach to what does or does not amount to harassment.[161]Mr Anderson on behalf of Mrs Bhakar also referred me to Huntingdon Life Sciences Ltd. v Curtin and others (The Times 11/12/97). In the short report of the Judgement of Eady J he cautions against too wide an interpretation of the Act and held that Parliament had not intended that it should be used to clamp down on the discussion of matters of public interest or upon the rights of political protest and public demonstration which were so much a part of our democratic tradition.[162]Mr Anderson accordingly urged me to be cautious in my application of the Act. He suggested I should be slow to apply it in a domestic context.[163]However, my task is to apply the plain words of the statute to the facts as I have found them. The report of the Huntingdon Life Sciences case is too short to enable me to understand fully the reasoning of Eady J. No doubt his approach was entirely correct on the facts of that case. However, in my view a Judge should be very slow to refuse on policy grounds to grant a statutory remedy if the provisions of the statute apply to the facts of the case.[164]In my judgement that is the position here. The course of conduct which I have found on the part of Mrs Bhakar is very serious. I bear in mind the strictures of May LJ, but I have no doubt at all that Mrs Bhakar’s conduct is far more than enough to amount to harassment for the purposes of the Act.[165]This can be tested by taking the hypothetical (but not improbable) case of a young woman who runs away from an arranged marriage. If the husband or members of his family then follow her and make trouble, conduct which is far less serious than I have found in the present case would be enough to found an action for damages and/or injunctive relief. Why should the position be any different when the conduct took place before the breakdown of the marriage? If anything, the situation is more serious in that context.[166]In my judgement Gina is therefore entitled to succeed in her claim, and I turn to the question of damages. Damages[167]Neither counsel was able to find any reported authority on the correct approach to the measure of damages under the Act. They therefore both invited me to have regard to the cases dealing with damages for psychiatric injury in Kemp & Kemp, and to what is said in the JSB Guidelines about this area.[168]First I deal with what I exclude from consideration. I have already excluded certain matters because they were not pleaded. Mr Anderson points out, and I accept that there is no claim made either for exemplary damages or for damages for past or future financial loss. Mrs Sood for Gina properly accepted that she could not pursue any claim under either head.[169]There is a claim for aggravated damages. However, Mr Anderson warned me against the danger of double recovery. He suggested that any damages which in a different context might be awarded by way of aggravated damages can here by treated as part of the general damages awarded under the Act. I asked him whether that would include aggravated damages to reflect the fact that Gina has had to relive the traumatic events and face the sort of attacks on her and her family’s motives which I have set out above: see e.g. KD v Chief Constable of Hampshire and another [2005] EWHC 2550 (QB) per Tugendhat J at #186.[170]Mr Anderson’s response was that in principle these matters could also be reflected in general damages under the Act. However, he urged me not in fact to include any such element of damages, on the basis that Gina has seen her case as a campaign and that coming to court may have been cathartic for her rather than traumatic.[171]I am prepared to accept Mr Anderson’s invitation to make no separate award for aggravated damages, but to treat what might otherwise have fallen into that category as part of the general damages. However, I reject his suggestion that no such damages should be awarded. It was quite obvious to me that notwithstanding the campaigning element in the case, the litigation has itself been very traumatic for Gina. I suspect that the thought that others might benefit from her actions is in large part something which she has used to give herself courage to continue with her case.[172]I accept Mr Anderson’s further submission that damages should be awarded on a compensatory not a punitive basis. I must focus on compensating Gina for the anxiety and trauma which she has suffered as a result of Mrs Bhakar’s course of conduct. This includes anxiety and trauma both while the conduct was happening and subsequently. I also take into account as a serious matter the allegations about Gina’s motivation by Mr Bhakar. Since I find that Mr and Mrs Bhakar have acted in concert for the purposes of the litigation, I treat them as one for this purpose.[173]Counsel were agreed that if I were to find for Gina, the general damages should be in the same bracket as for moderately severe psychiatric damage in the JSB Guidelines for the Assessment of General Damages: £10,500 to £30,000. Within this bracket Mr Anderson naturally sought to lead me towards the lower end, relying on the following cases in Kemp & Kemp:• Jones v Majid C1-009• Walters v North Glamorgan NHS Trust C1-014• Re Gambill (No 2) C1 020 He suggested a figure of £15,000. Mrs Sood left it to me to find the appropriate level within the bracket.[174]However, in my judgement there are three important differences between damages for personal injuries resulting from a single trauma and damages under the Act(i) In a personal injury action there is rarely any significant element to reflect the trauma of the accident itself. The focus is very much on compensating the claimant for the consequences of the accident. Here I must take account not only of the period after 2/3/03, but of the four months of hell which I find Gina lived through while the conduct was continuing.(ii) Secondlessness. She is entitled to an element of compensation for having been deliberately targeted.(iii) Thirdly thy the course of conduct towards Gina was not merely negligent or even reckless but deliberate. While avoiding any punitive element, I believe that I can and should take into account that for Gina it must have been much worse to know that she was the target of malevolent behaviour than if she had suffered through someone’s carelere is the element of quasi-aggravated damages which I have dealt with.[175]In my judgement the first and second of these matters alone, taken in conjunction with the evidence as a whole (including the evidence of Dr Stocking Korzen) would be sufficient to take Gina close to the top of the agreed bracket. She was utterly miserable and wretched during those four months, and was suffering from what was for her an incomprehensible personal attack. On this basis alone I would have awarded general damages of £27,500. Taking into account the way in which the defence case has been conducted (though not, I emphasise, by Mr Anderson), the overall award should be £35,000. Postscript[176]It is conventional for a Judge to thank counsel at the end of a difficult case. However, my thanks to both Mr Anderson and Mrs Sood are genuine and heart-felt. This was not an easy case for either of them to present. Emotions were running high and it would have been all too easy for counsel to have allowed themselves to get caught up with these emotions. It is greatly to the credit of both counsel that they at no stage allowed this to happen. So far as possible, they both tried not to allow the emotional temperature to be raised and they were surprisingly successful.