Richard has his own brief account of his case and its outcome here. The most interesting bit is his interpretation of the fact that punitive damages were awarded. He quotes Justice Peter Cory of the Supreme Court:
“Punitive damages may be awarded in situations where the defendant’s misconduct is so malicious, oppressive and high‑handed that it offends the court’s sense of decency. Punitive damages bear no relation to what the plaintiff should receive by way of compensation. Their aim is not to compensate the plaintiff, but rather to punish the defendant. It is the means by which the jury or judge expresses its outrage at the egregious conduct of the defendant. They are in the nature of a fine which is meant to act as a deterrent to the defendant and to others from acting in this manner.”
Over at FreeD and elsewhere they are still claiming they're victims, or well-intentioned critics of a human rights system gone bad, or whatever. The jury did not see it this way. The jury thought they were assholes, and sought to punish them for the fact.