In the UK, the law relating to pineapples is narrow. Until recently, the rules only stipulated when a pineapple must be sold with its weight specified. Now a Scottish court decision has confirmed that, legally, the fruit can be an agent of harm in an assault.

A former policewoman who was struck on the sternum by a flying pineapple during a disturbance has just been awarded £3,000. Tracey Ormsby, the claimant, originally submitted a claim for £1.5 million, saying she had suffered serious psychological injuries including a major depressive disorder and agoraphobia after the attack by a mob at Govanhill Baths in Glasgow in 2001.

Last week, however, at the Court of Session in Edinburgh, Lord Malcolm doubted the extent of her mental injury. The judge heard evidence that since the assault she had taken several foreign holidays, joined a gym and acquired a new boyfriend after ending her previous relationship with a married officer. Her love life became relevant because the officer accused Ormsby of threatening to send his wife compromising photos unless he agreed to give perjured evidence on Ormsby's behalf.

Ormsby, of Strathclyde police, was ordered to attend a protest in 2001. The baths were to be closed and a furious crowd had assembled to try to stop workmen from boarding up the premises. After violent disorder erupted, and missiles, including the pineapple, were thrown at the police, senior officers breached their duty of care to their staff by keeping them in a cordon after the risk of serious injury arose.

The court ruled that Ormsby was entitled to an award for her minor physical injuries but rejected her claim for psychological injury. Lord Malcolm said he could not reconcile the Ormsby he saw giving “robust, combative and feisty” testimony in the witness box with “the fearful and fragile person” described in some of the medical reports.

Flying fruit has rarely been of significance in English law though it did feature unexpectedly in one case. On December 2, 1938, the Court of Appeal ruled that a man who had hurled tomatoes at its judges had committed a gross contempt of court.

Frank Harrison, representing himself, had made an application for a new trial in a civil case that he had lost. When his argument was rejected by the appeal court, Harrision withdrew a number of tomatoes from his pocket and hurled them in a fusillade at Lord Justice Clauson and Lord Justice Goddard. Physically as well as mentally agile, the judges avoided all of the shots.

Harrison was swiftly sentenced to six weeks imprisonment. His final submission to the bench wasn’t ideally framed to improve his situation. Pulled away to the cells, he shouted, “It is a pity I was not a better shot”. But three weeks later his profuse apology was accepted and he was released for Christmas. To get plum pudding you must sometimes first eat humble pie.

Professor Gary Slapper is Director of the Centre for Law at the Open University

Times Recommends

• City law firms prepare for painful year ahead
• Welcome to 2009: the year of the regulator
• Thacher Proffitt is latest US legal casualty