All judges agree that there should never be a duty of care in negligence owed by the police to any individuals affected by the way police criminal investigations are carried out.

Question

Quizplus · Accepted Answer

The statement is false. While this does seem to be the general position of the courts particularly the House of Lords/Supreme Court because of the perceived policy reasons often raised against there being such a duty (a general duty is owed to the public at large and this would conflict with individual duties, having such duties would encourage defensive policing, the police ought to be protected from liability as they are paid for from the public purse etc.), there are some instances where a particular judge or judges have been prepared to depart from this position. Of note was Lord Bingham's dissenting opinion in Smith v Chief Constable of Sussex Police [2008]. He said that 'if the pleaded facts are established, the Chief Constable did owe Mr Smith a duty of care [our emphasis]… I would hold that if a member of the public (A) furnishes a police officer (B) with apparently credible evidence that a third party whose identity and whereabouts are known presents a specific and imminent threat to his life or physical safety, B owes A a duty to take reasonable steps to assess such threat and, if appropriate, take reasonable steps to prevent it being executed'. The Court of Appeal in the same case had also found that a duty should exist on the facts of the case, however, the majority of the law lords did not.
Similarly, in Michael v Chief Constable of South Wales Police [2015], Lord Kerr and Lady Hale dissented from the other five Supreme Court justices who would have found not duty of care (the Court of Appeal had also found a duty). While Lord Kerr preferred a re-formulation of Bingham's 'liability principle' from Smith, Lady Hale cited policy reasons in favour of the police owing a duty of care in the circumstances.

All Judges Agree That There Should Never Be a Duty