Key Cases on Police Liability and Immunity

The question of whether police owe a duty of care to individual members of the public for failures in the investigation or prevention of crime has been the subject of extensive litigation.

Hill v Chief Constable of West Yorkshire [1989] AC 53 (House of Lords) established the general principle that police do not owe a duty of care to individual victims of crime for alleged negligence in investigating or preventing crime. The mother of the last victim of the Yorkshire Ripper argued that police should have caught Sutcliffe earlier. The House of Lords held that public policy considerations, including the risk of defensive policing and the diversion of resources to litigation, militated against imposing a duty of care.

The ECHR took a different view in Osman v United Kingdom [1998] 29 EHRR 245. The court held that where police knew or ought to have known of a real and immediate risk to the life of an identified individual, and failed to take measures within the scope of their powers which, judged reasonably, might have been expected to avoid that risk, there may be a violation of Article 2 of the Convention. This "Osman test" has been applied in subsequent cases.

Michael v Chief Constable of South Wales Police [2015] UKSC 2 (Supreme Court) revisited the Hill principle. Joanna Michael called 999 reporting that her ex-partner was threatening to kill her. The call was misgraded and the response delayed; she was murdered before officers arrived. The Supreme Court, by a 5-2 majority, upheld the Hill principle and held that the police did not owe a common law duty of care. However, the minority judgments argued powerfully for a duty of care where the police have assumed responsibility by taking the call and promising a response.

DSD v Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis [2018] UKSC 11 (the John Worboys case) held that a failure by the Metropolitan Police to conduct effective investigations into allegations of sexual offences could give rise to a claim under Article 3 (prohibition of torture and inhuman treatment) of the Convention. The Supreme Court held that Article 3 imposes a positive operational duty on police to investigate credible allegations of serious violence, and that systemic or individual failures in investigation can constitute a breach.