HILL V CHIEF CONSTABLE OF WEST YORKSHIRE [1987] UKHL 12
FACTS:-
This case centered on the murders committed by Peter Sutcliffe in West Yorkshire. Between 1975 and 1980 he murdered thirteen women and attempted to murder eight more. His last victim was a student named Jacqueline Hill, who was murdered in Leeds in 1980. Sutcliffe was arrested in 1981 and convicted of her murder and killing others.
The Claimant was Miss Hill’s mother claiming for loss of expectation of life and pain and suffering. Section 48(1) of the Police Act 1964 said that the chief officer of police for any police area would be liable in respects of torts committed by constables under his direction. The Claimant claimed that the police failed to arrest Sutcliffe soon enough so as to prevent her daughter’s murder.
The Defendant applied to have the action struck out as disclosing no reasonable cause of action, which was granted at first instance and confirmed by the Court of Appeal.
JUDGMENT:-
Lord Keith said that in considering whether the statement of claim was rightly struck out, it had to be assumed that the averments of fact were true. It also had to be assumed that the police had made a number of mistakes in investigating the crimes of Sutcliffe, which they would not have made if they had exercised reasonable skill and care. The question of law opened up by the case was whether the individual members of the police force owed a duty of care to individual members of the public who might have suffered injury through the activities of criminals.
There was no issue that a police officer, might be liable in tort to a person who was injured as a direct result of is acts or omissions. That applied to assault, unlawful arrest, wrongful imprisonment and malicious prosecution and also for negligence. Cases where liability had been established were Knightly v Johns [1982] 1 WLR 349 and Rigby v Chief Constable of Northamptonshire [1985] 1 WLR 1242.
A police officer might be guilty of a criminal offence if he willfully failed to perform his duty R v Dytham [1979] QB 722.
By the common law, police officers also owed to the general public a duty to enforce the criminal law R v Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis, Ex Parte Blackburn [1968] 2 QB 118. However that case demonstrated that the police had a wide discretion as to the manner in which the duty was discharged.
Lord Keith referred to the cases of Anns v Merton London Borough Council [1978] AC 728 and Donoghue v Stevenson [1932] AC 562 where a duty of care was found. The foundation of the duty of care in this case was said to be reasonable foreseeability of harm to potential victims. However forseeability of harm was not in itself a sufficient test of liability in negligence. Some further ingredient was required. The nature of the ingredient would vary in different categories of case, but in the Anns case there was held to be sufficient proximity of relationship between the parties. That was a case where the local authority was under a statutory duty to supervise compliance with building regulations, in particular as to the construction of the foundation.
In Dorset Yacht Co. Ltd v Home Office [1970] AC 1004 Lord Diplock had said that the judicial development of the law of negligence should proceed by seeking first to identify the relevant characteristics that were common to the kinds of conduct and relationship between the parties, involved in the case for decision and the kinds of conduct and relationships that had been held in previous decisions to give rise to a duty of care.
The class of persons to whom a duty of care might be owed in the situation of Dorset Yacht. The risk of sustained damage from the tortious acts of criminal was shared by the public at large.
In Dorset Yacht Borstal trainees had escaped from the care of their minders and stolen a yacht. Lord Diplock said that what distinguished a Borstal trainee who had escaped from one who had been duly released from custody was his liability to capture, and the distinctive added risk that he might commit further crimes whilst out of custody.
Lord Keith said that in this case, Sutcliffe was never in the custody of the police force and Miss Hill was one of a vast number of the female general public who might be at risk from his activities.
That was a sufficient reason for the disposal of the Claimant’s case but there was another reason why there should be no action for damages in negligence. Lord Keith referred to the case of Yuen Kun Yeu v Attorney General of Hong Kong [1988] AC 175. Potential existence of liability might in many circumstances be in the general public interest as tending towards the observance of a higher standard of care. Lord Keith did not think that this could be said of police activities. The general sense of public duty which motivated police forces was unlikely to be appreciably reinforced by the imposition of such liability. In some instances the imposition of liability might lead to the exercise of a function being carried on in a detrimentally defensive frame of mind. Moreover the result would be a significant diversion of police manpower and attention from their most important function, that of the suppression of crime. In Rondel v Worsley [1969] 1 AC 191 it was held to be right to render a barrister immune from actions for negligence in his conduct of proceedings in court. The same rationale applied here.
Lord Brandon, Lord Templeman, Lord Oliver and Lord Goff agreed.
FACTS:-
This case centered on the murders committed by Peter Sutcliffe in West Yorkshire. Between 1975 and 1980 he murdered thirteen women and attempted to murder eight more. His last victim was a student named Jacqueline Hill, who was murdered in Leeds in 1980. Sutcliffe was arrested in 1981 and convicted of her murder and killing others.
The Claimant was Miss Hill’s mother claiming for loss of expectation of life and pain and suffering. Section 48(1) of the Police Act 1964 said that the chief officer of police for any police area would be liable in respects of torts committed by constables under his direction. The Claimant claimed that the police failed to arrest Sutcliffe soon enough so as to prevent her daughter’s murder.
The Defendant applied to have the action struck out as disclosing no reasonable cause of action, which was granted at first instance and confirmed by the Court of Appeal.
JUDGMENT:-
Lord Keith said that in considering whether the statement of claim was rightly struck out, it had to be assumed that the averments of fact were true. It also had to be assumed that the police had made a number of mistakes in investigating the crimes of Sutcliffe, which they would not have made if they had exercised reasonable skill and care. The question of law opened up by the case was whether the individual members of the police force owed a duty of care to individual members of the public who might have suffered injury through the activities of criminals.
There was no issue that a police officer, might be liable in tort to a person who was injured as a direct result of is acts or omissions. That applied to assault, unlawful arrest, wrongful imprisonment and malicious prosecution and also for negligence. Cases where liability had been established were Knightly v Johns [1982] 1 WLR 349 and Rigby v Chief Constable of Northamptonshire [1985] 1 WLR 1242.
A police officer might be guilty of a criminal offence if he willfully failed to perform his duty R v Dytham [1979] QB 722.
By the common law, police officers also owed to the general public a duty to enforce the criminal law R v Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis, Ex Parte Blackburn [1968] 2 QB 118. However that case demonstrated that the police had a wide discretion as to the manner in which the duty was discharged.
Lord Keith referred to the cases of Anns v Merton London Borough Council [1978] AC 728 and Donoghue v Stevenson [1932] AC 562 where a duty of care was found. The foundation of the duty of care in this case was said to be reasonable foreseeability of harm to potential victims. However forseeability of harm was not in itself a sufficient test of liability in negligence. Some further ingredient was required. The nature of the ingredient would vary in different categories of case, but in the Anns case there was held to be sufficient proximity of relationship between the parties. That was a case where the local authority was under a statutory duty to supervise compliance with building regulations, in particular as to the construction of the foundation.
In Dorset Yacht Co. Ltd v Home Office [1970] AC 1004 Lord Diplock had said that the judicial development of the law of negligence should proceed by seeking first to identify the relevant characteristics that were common to the kinds of conduct and relationship between the parties, involved in the case for decision and the kinds of conduct and relationships that had been held in previous decisions to give rise to a duty of care.
The class of persons to whom a duty of care might be owed in the situation of Dorset Yacht. The risk of sustained damage from the tortious acts of criminal was shared by the public at large.
In Dorset Yacht Borstal trainees had escaped from the care of their minders and stolen a yacht. Lord Diplock said that what distinguished a Borstal trainee who had escaped from one who had been duly released from custody was his liability to capture, and the distinctive added risk that he might commit further crimes whilst out of custody.
Lord Keith said that in this case, Sutcliffe was never in the custody of the police force and Miss Hill was one of a vast number of the female general public who might be at risk from his activities.
That was a sufficient reason for the disposal of the Claimant’s case but there was another reason why there should be no action for damages in negligence. Lord Keith referred to the case of Yuen Kun Yeu v Attorney General of Hong Kong [1988] AC 175. Potential existence of liability might in many circumstances be in the general public interest as tending towards the observance of a higher standard of care. Lord Keith did not think that this could be said of police activities. The general sense of public duty which motivated police forces was unlikely to be appreciably reinforced by the imposition of such liability. In some instances the imposition of liability might lead to the exercise of a function being carried on in a detrimentally defensive frame of mind. Moreover the result would be a significant diversion of police manpower and attention from their most important function, that of the suppression of crime. In Rondel v Worsley [1969] 1 AC 191 it was held to be right to render a barrister immune from actions for negligence in his conduct of proceedings in court. The same rationale applied here.
Lord Brandon, Lord Templeman, Lord Oliver and Lord Goff agreed.