Duty of Care: Public Bodies cases

Subscribe on YouTube

I help people navigate their law degrees

🎓 Simple and digestible information on studying law effectively.

🎬 One new video every week (I accept requests and reply to everything!)

📚 FREE courses, content, and other exciting giveaways.

Gareth Evans' personal youtube channel

Hill v Chief Constable of West Yorkshire [1988] 2 WLR 1049

Facts: The police had the Yorkshire ripper in custody, but they did not hav enough information on which to charge him, so they released him. The Yorkshire ripper then went and killed Hill’s daughter.

Held: The court found that there was insufficient proximity between the police and victim. For policy reasons, the court held it was undesirable or the police to owe legal duties to individual victims and there was a concern about defensive practices. In other words, the court didn't want the police having to do lots of form fillings and have to apply for extra resources - so it was held that the police did not owe a duty of care here

Lord Keith said the following:

  • 1) The police do not need an incentive for higher standards
    • In other words, there is no need to say the police have a duty of care to ensure their standards remain high, as their standards are already high
  • 2) It is undesirable for the police to conduct an “elaborate investigation of facts” to determine whether the Yorkshire Ripper was guilty when he was in custody
    • This is slightly strange, but goes down to allocation of resources

So Hill is one of those cases that really defines why the police cannot be sued, pretty much, under negligence

Michael v Chief Constable of South Wales Police [2015] UKSC 2

Facts: A couple had split up a few weeks before. The man came around to her flat and found her with someone else. He bit her ear really hard and took off with the other guy in his car and said he would be back to kill her. She phoned the police, but the police operators were not really paying much attention and were a bit slow passing it on to different operators - so the police were slow to respond. Once the police finally arrived he'd already killed her - he stabbed her 72 times. Do the police have responsibility?

Held: The majority (5:2) dismissed the negligence claim - they decided this because this came under a policy matter (i.e. allocation of resources). The case will now proceed to trial under the Human Rights Act.

Osman v Ferguson [1993] 4 All ER 344

Facts: Osman was at school. A school teacher developed an unhealthy interest in the boy. The parents reported the teacher to the police, but the police took no action. The teacher, nevertheless, got fired by the school. The police were called on several occasions and the teacher had told the police that he was unable to control himself and would do something which was criminally insane if he was not stopped. Eventually, the teacher followed Osman home one night and shot him and his father. Osman survived but his father did not. Osman bought an action for the personal injuries he suffered as a result of the police force's failure to apprehend the teacher earlier or to provide adequate protection

Held: The Court of Appeal struck out Osman's claim. This was because it was "doomed to fail" on the basis of applying the Hill test (i.e. this would fall under a policy matter meaning the police did not owe a duty of care). So, Osman took the case to the European Court of Human Rights. The ECtHR said there was no violation of Article 2 (the right to life) and Article 8 (the right to respect for private and family life, home and correspondence), BUT they said there had been a violation of article 6 (the right to a fair trial). So this case began the article 6.1 controversy i.e. its all about whether or not you are giving people a fair trial by simply striking out a claim if it concerns the negligence of the police.

"…where there is an allegation that the authorities have violated their positive obligation to protect the right to life in the context of their above-mentioned duty to prevent and suppress offences against the person, it must be established to its satisfaction that the authorities  knew or  ought to  have  known at the  time of the  existence of a  real and  immediate  risk to the life of an identified individual"

  • In other words, the police will only be negligent if they knew or ought to have known that the person's life was at risk and failed to do anything about it.
  • This is an incredibly high hurdle - it demonstrates that it is unlikely the police will be held to owe a duty, but does not really help to justify the Article 6.1 controvery

Reeves v Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis [2000] 1 AC 360

Facts: There was someone who was a known suicide risk who was put in custody. At 11.57 he was checked and everything with him seemed fine. In the intervening 7 minutes he managed to get his shirt into a noose and hang himself and was found dead. His wife sued the police on the basis that they had a duty of care.

Held: Initially, it was found the police did owe a duty of care, but because the suicide was an intervening act the person who comitted suicide had 100% liability. The case went all the way to the House of Lords. They said that the police were resonsible for the death as that person was in custody, but he was 50% contributory negligent to his own death

The Art of Getting a First in Law - ONLY £4.99

FOOL-PROOF methods of obtaining top grades

SECRETS your professors won't tell you and your peers don't know

INSIDER TIPS and tricks so you can spend less time studying and land the perfect job

We work really hard to provide you with incredible law notes for free...

The proceeds of this eBook helps us to run the site and keep the service FREE!

CONTENT

Rigby v Chief Constable of Northampton [1985] 2 All ER 986

Facts: A dangerous psychopath went into a building that sold guns etc. The police fired canisters of CS gas into the building and it caused the building to set alight: so the building was destroyed by the action of the police. You could say it was the psychopaths fault, because if he hadn;t gone into the building in the first place then this would never have happened. But, this dangerous psychopath probably hasn’t got much money, so Rigby sues the police knowing they will have money

Held: The court considered this: should the police have acquired new CS gas canisters that did not have the risk of causing damage to the building? This came udner a policy matter in terms of allocation of resources, so the court held that they were not negligent for not getting better CS canisters

The court also question whether the police should have put better things in place (such as, fire equipment) had they used these particular canisters. The court said that the police should have done, because that came under an operational matter i.e. they had an operational duty to do things right. So, in terms of the actual way the police carried things out there is a duty owed - so they were negligence

Smith v Chief Constable of Sussex [2008] EWCA Civ 39

Facts: Smith lived with his lover Mr Jeffrey. Smith then ended the relationship and Jeffrey assaulted him. Sometime later Smith moved away but maintained contact with Jeffrey. Jeffrey wanted to resume the relationship but Smith did not. Jeffrey then started sending abusive and threatening texts which included death threats. Smith contacted the police several times in relation to the threats and informed the police of the previous violence. Jeffrey eventually attacked Smith with a hammer causing him three fractures to the skull and brain damage. Smith brought an action against the police for their failure to provide adequate protection

Held: The High Court struck out the case in favour of the police. The Court of Appeal reversed the decision and the police appealed. The House of Lords held in favour of the police: no duty of care was owed by the police. The court came to the conclusion that the case fell squarely within the principle established in Hill v Chief Constable of West Yorkshire [1988] (i.e. there was insufficient proximity between the police and the victim).

Note, however, Lord Brown said a claim under the Human Rights Act here is "irresistable". He thinks that although negligence is there to compensate losses, a separate claim is available through the ambit of human rights, which seeks to uphold standards of behaviour and vindicate rights

Swinney v Chief Constable of Northumbria Police [1997] QB 464

Facts: The informant had received threats from a violent suspect adter her contact details were stolen from an unattended polce car. Did the police owe a duty of care?

Held: Yes, the police had assumed responsibility for informants safety

Van Colle v Chief Constable of Hertfordshire [2008] UKHL 50

Facts: Van Colle employed Mr Broughman as a technician at his optical practice. Three months into the employment hey had an argument resulting in a physical confrontation. Following this, Mr roughman never returned to work. Six weekls later the police found items belonging to the optical practice and other stolen goods at Mr Broughman's home. He was arrested and charged with theft. Broughman then started to harass Mr Van Colle to pressure him into not giving evidence. THe harassment included torching his car and making death threats. Van Colle reported this to the police who arranged a meeting to take a statement with a view to arrest Broughman. Unfortunately the meeting never took place as Broughman shot and killed Van Colle on his way home from work. Broughman was convicted of murder. Van Colle's parents brought an action against the police alleging violation of articles 2 (the right to life) and 8 (the right to respect for private and family life, home and correspondence) of the European Convention on Human Rights.

Held: The trial judge found for the claimant and awarded damages. The Court of Appeal uphled that decision. However, the House of Lords applied the case of Osman v Ferguson [1993] (i.e. the police must have “known or  ought to  have  known at the  time of the  existence of a  real and  immediate  risk to the  life” of Van Colle). The court concluded that this threshold had not been met, so the police were not guilty.

X v Bedfordshire CC [1995] 2 AC 633

Facts: This case was an action by nine children for breach of statutory duty and negligence by the local authorities, for carelessness in deciding whether to take children into care, and for failing to assess special education needs carefully.

  • The first group of claimants alleged that the local authority negligently failed to take children into care or wrongly decided to take others into care
  • The second group of claimants alleged that the local authority negligently failed to provide adequate education for children with special needs

Held: Since the statutes gave the authorities discretion as to how their duties were to be performed, Lord Browne-Wilkinson held that the authorities could not be liable in negligence unless ‘the decision complained of is so unreasonable that it falls outside the ambit of the discretion conferred upon the local authority’. So, the local authorities had not breached their duty of care here.

“The local authority cannot be liable in damages for doing that which Parliament has authorised. Therefore the decisions complained of fall within the ambit of such a statutory discretion they cannot be actionable in common law.” (Lord Browne-Wilkinson at p. 736)

This case got taken to the European Court of Human Rights in Z v UK (2002)

Z v UK (2002) (Application No 29392/95)

Facts: The claimants from X v Bedfordshire CC [1995] (their claims in negligence having been struck out) brought an action against the UK alleging violation of article 6 of the ECHR (the right to a fair trial), 3 (freedom from inhuman and degrading treatment), 8 (respect for private and family life), and 13 (right to compensation in the event of a violation of one of the substantive rights).

Held: Although it was found there was no violation of article 6, there HAD been a violation of articles 3 and 13 → the absence of protection for the interests of the children in this case, and also the lack of a remedy in the form of compensation had violated their convention rights. So their claim under Art 13 was successful because the court believed they did not have an appropriate means of obtaining an enforceable award of compensation for the damage suffered, so were awarded an effective remedy under Art 13.

The court held the "effective remedy" which must be provided did not necessarily have to be in negligence. In other words, where the claimant could show breach of the Human Right Act, the UK might decide to grant a remedy under Act, but STILL hold that policy reasons prevented a Duty of Care of the local authority in negligence. So, it is possible, in a roundabout way, to have this blanket immunity for the local authority!

Law Application Masterclass - ONLY £9.99

Learn how to effortlessly land vacation schemes, training contracts, and pupillages by making your law applications awesome. This eBook is constructed by lawyers and recruiters from the world's leading law firms and barristers' chambers.

✅ 60+ page eBook

✅ Research Methods, Success Secrets, Tips, Tricks, and more!

✅ Help keep Digestible Notes FREE

Course on the art of learning effectively, a reading masterclass