POLICE

1. Failing to investigate, prosecute and prevent crime

Hill v CC of WY
- Police owed no doc to individual members of the public to identify and
(1989)
arrest a series killer before he struck agn.
(blanket immunity)
Lord Keith explained why no duty should be owed
1. Cause police to be in defensive state of mind
2. Police should be left with discretion on investigation job
3. Police should be investigating suspects and cases, not caught up with
negligence trial
4. Time, expense and resources will be used to defend themselves if
duty is owed.
Alexandrou v Oxford
Osman v Ferguson
(1993)

Failure to prevent burglary no doc owed.

Identity of the suspect was known, identity of the likely targets also
known.
Although CA was prepared to accept there were a special relationship of
proximity btw Ps family and the police, the Hills immunity was applied
and the case failed on grounds of policy.
CA held that the claim should be struck out as disclosing no cause of
action, no liability for the police to be immune from.
Osman v UK (1999)
No breach of Article 2 (right to life)
Osman test: (narrower rule as to the circumstances in which a state
might violate Art 2)
It must be establishedthat the authorities knew or ought to have
known at the time of a real and immediate risk to the life of an identified
individual or individuals from the criminal act of a third party and that
they failed to take measures within the scope of their powers which,
judged reasonably, might have been expected to avoid that risk.
Smith v CC of Sussex F: (C) was attacked and injured by former partner who made a series of
Police(2008)
threats
Report lodged but police failed to act
H: HOL confirmed and applied Hill
NO DOC owed by police Osman threshold not met
Such a doc would cause defensive policing and would divert police
resources away
from combating crime in order to deal with litigation.
Michael v SWP
Domestic killing of victim by boyfriend.
(2015)
Police is not liable for failing to respond promptly to the victims 999 call.
2. UNFAIR ARREST, PROSECUTION and TREATMENT OF SUSPECTS & VICTIMS OF
CRIME
Brooks v MPC (2005)
The C who witnessed the racist murder of his friend suffered posttraumatic stress as the result of the way he was treated by the police.
Following the murder, he was first treated as suspect and later as a
witness, but not as a victim of a crime.
H: HOL applied Hill no DOC owed
To convert an ethical duty to treat victims and witnesses properly and
with respect into
a legal doc would be going too far.
An Informer v CC
F: information given about money laundering but police tried to
(2012)
implicate informer but later dropped action against the informer.
- suffered financial loss and psychiatric injury.
H: No doc owed no assumption of responsible
3. PROTECTION OF WITNESS
Swinney v CC of NP
F: C identified killer of a police officer and was assured protection
(1997)
Through police neglect killer obtained her information when police

car was stolen.

Had been subjected to death threats and suffered psychiatric
injury.
Sued the police on the basis they are under a doc to keep her
details confidential.
H: CA found the required forseeability and proximity.
EXCEPTION to Hill assumption of responsibility
- Fight against crime is daily dependent upon information fed to the
police by members of the public.
- Therefore, in spite of Hill, the C had an arguable case in negligence:
there was a sufficient degree of proximity as she was not merely a
member of the public, but had a special relationship with the police
which rendered her distinguishable from the general public.
Van Colle v CC of HP F: Deceased was a prosecution witness in a theft case but was
(2009)
threatened by the suspect
Police notified but no protection was given witness shot dead before
trial.
H: HOL held the Osman test - the police knew or ought to have
known at the time of the shooting of a real and immediate risk of
the life of an identified individual of a criminal act from a TP was not
met.
4. CLAIMS BY POLICE OFFICER WRONGED
Waters v MPC
F: CL-police officer raped by colleague- complained but subjected to
(1997)
insults by colleagues.
H: It is in public interest to impose DOC steps must be taken to
improve standard of service.
WELFARE/ CHILDREN CARE SERVICES
X v Bedfordshire CC 9 children sued- breach of statutory duty the Children Act 1989 &
(1995)
Social workers failed to take children into care although they had many
- breach of Art 3
reports that they were being abused and failing to assess the special
education needs carefully.
Statutes in X gave the authorities discretion as to how their duties
should be performed.
H: Lord Browne-Wilkinson held that the authorities could not be liable
UNLESS the decision performed is so unreasonable that it falls outside
the ambit of the discretion conferred upon the LA.
If the issues included matters of policy that are not justiciable x
outside the ambit of the discretion.
Even if the conduct was not within a statutory discretion, the court will
not impose a doc in the exercise of a statutory duty or power if it would
inappropriately interfere with the authoritys functions.
Phelps v Hillingdon
F: Education psychologist employed D failed to diagnose the C as
LBC (2001)
suffering from dyslexia
H: EP assumed a doc to pupils (child of special needs)