What is the test for Charter damages?

… (a) Damages for breach of a person's Charter rights are to be distinguished from private law damages. They are to be distinguished from a tort claim for which a state actor may be vicariously liable. Rather, they are to be regarded as a "a public law action directly against the state for which the state is primarily liable'. . . . The nature of the remedy is to require the state (or society writ large) to compensate an individual for breaches of the individual's constitutional rights. An action for public law damages -- including constitutional damages -- lies against the state and not against individual actors. Actions against individual actors should be pursued in accordance with existing causes of action" (at para. 22, in part quoting Dunlea v. Attorney General, [2000] NZCA 84, [2000] 3 N.Z.L.R. 136, at para. 81). (b) There are three purposes that Charter damages may serve: compensation, vindication and deterrence. (c) In the public law context, when it comes to compensation, the courts have recognized that personal losses that may be compensated include "harm to the claimant's intangible interests" which includes "distress, humiliation, embarrassment, and anxiety". This harm will often merge with psychological harm, but "a resilient claimant whose intangible interests are harmed should not be precluded from recovering damages simply because she cannot prove a substantial psychological injury" (at para. 27). (d) "Vindication focuses on the harm the infringement causes society . . . [V]iolations of constitutionally protected rights harm not only their particular victims, but society as a whole . . . While one may speak of vindication as underlining the seriousness of the harm done to the claimant, vindication as an object of constitutional damages focuses on the harm the Charter breach causes to the state and to society" (at para. 28). (e) "Deterrence seeks to regulate government behaviour, generally, in order to achieve compliance with the Constitution . . . [D]eterrence as an object of Charter damages is not aimed at deterring the specific wrongdoer, but rather at influencing government behaviour in order to secure state compliance with the Charter in the future" (at para. 29). [page 480] (f) Damages for Charter breaches where the conduct is serious "promote good governance. Compliance with Charter standards is a foundational principle of good governance" (at para. 38). (g) The quantum of Charter damages should not be unduly high (partly in recognition of the fact that it is society as a whole that is asked to pay), but the award "must represent a meaningful response to the seriousness of the breach and the objectives of compensation, upholding Charter values, and deterring future breaches" (at para. 54).