Robinson v Chief Constable of West Yorkshire Police [2018] UKSC 4

KEY POINTS

• Negligence is a failure to meet the standard of care expected in a situation.

• In law enforcement, the duty of care is important, especially when officers cause harm to bystanders.

  • This duty requires individuals, including police, to take reasonable steps to avoid foreseeable harm.

  • In cases where police cause injury while arresting a suspect in a town center, questions arise about the duty of care owed to passers-by and whether they fulfilled it.

• As a general rule, the police are not obligated to provide a duty of care towards individuals to protect them from harm or injury that has been caused by someone else, especially if they did not cause the danger to begin with.

  • However, the police may be under a duty of care to protect individuals if they are the ones who caused the danger themselves, including a danger stemming from the actions of third parties.

  • The reasonably foreseeable risk of injury is enough to impose a duty of care on the police.

• An essential aspect is determining that police officers are immune from negligence claims for injuries during core duties.

  • This inquiry understands the balance between empowering law enforcement and ensuring accountability for civilian harm.

  • The interplay of duty of care and potential immunity complicates whether the police can be held liable for injuries sustained by the claimant.

• Resolving these legal questions demands a careful examination of the incident, police actions, and relevant legal principles governing duty of care and immunity in law enforcement duties.

FACTS

• Detective Sergeant Willan and Police Constable Dhurmea, (Two Police Officers) attempted to arrest a suspected drug dealer on a weekday afternoon in a shopping street in a town centre.

• A struggle ensued, leading to a collision that involved the three men and Elizabeth Robinson (The Claimant), a relatively frail 76-year-old elderly lady who was walking along the shopping street.

  • They all fell to the ground, with The Claimant underneath.

  • Sustaining injuries from the incident as a result of the struggle, The Claimant initiated legal action against the Defendant (Chief Constable), seeking damages for personal injuries based on the alleged negligence of the two police officers.

• Upon examination, Mr Recorder Pimm (The Judge) ruled that the police officers acted negligently.

  • The court found a foreseeable risk of harm to passers-by, including The Claimant, and that the officers had failed to consider the public's safety in the vicinity.

• However, despite establishing negligence, The Judge dismissed the claim because the police were immune from negligence claims.

• The case proceeded to the Court of Appeal, where The Claimant appealed the dismissal.

  • The Court of Appeal upheld the initial decision, stating that the police owed no duty of care.

  • Furthermore, even if the officers were deemed to owe The Claimant such a duty, the court held that, based on the facts of the case, the officers had not breached that duty.

  • As a result, The Claimant's appeal was ultimately dismissed.

JUDGEMENT

• Lord Hughes JSC, expressing doubt, clarified that police generally owe a duty of care in negligence unless statutes or common law dictate otherwise.

  • There's no blanket exemption for their duty when preventing or investigating crimes.

  • The appeal was allowed, asserting that in cases involving positive police acts, a duty of care exists if there's a foreseeable risk of injury.

• The chain of events leading to The Claimant's injury, initiated by the arrest attempt, remained unbroken, making the police liable for negligence.

• The Court of Appeal's decision was overturned.

Lord Mance

• Noted the influence of policy in defining the duty of care

Lord Hughes

• Emphasized that the reasonableness of police actions determines negligence, not hindsight judgment.

COMMENTARY

• In an incident where police attempted to arrest a suspect, injuring a bystander, questions arose about the duty of care.

  • The initial ruling, finding police negligence but granting immunity, led to the dismissal of the case. 

  • The Court of Appeal upheld this decision, asserting no duty of care.

  • However, Lord Hughes JSC later allowed the appeal, stating police generally owe a duty of care.

  • The decision overturned the Court of Appeal, emphasizing reasonableness in determining negligence and the interplay between duty of care and potential immunity in law enforcement duties.

• The Court made a clear distinction on when the duty of care may be imposed on public authorities in the exercise of their duties.

• Since the ordinary principles of negligence apply to public authorities, it emphasizes that such public authorities do not enjoy any special immunity from liability against claims in negligence.