Assumption Of Responsibility And Omissions - A New Era For Public Authorities?

• Published date: 01 September 2023
• Subject Matter: Litigation, Mediation & Arbitration, Criminal Law, Trials & Appeals & Compensation, Personal Injury, Professional Negligence, Crime
• Law Firm: Weightmans
• Author: Andrew Steel and Emelia Bezant-Gahan

The decision of this case threatens to potentially mark one of the most significant developments in common law for public bodies in decades.

An analysis of the legal landscape following the recent decision in Woodcock v Chief Constable of Northamptonshire [2023] EWHC 1062 (KB)

Abstract

There have been a number of recent high-profile decisions concerning liability with regard to assumption of responsibility, acts and omissions. However, the judgment handed down in May in Woodcock v Chief Constable of Northamptonshire [2023] EWHC 1062 (KB) ("Woodcock") threatens to disrupt a well-established series of precedents and potentially mark one of the most significant developments in common law for public bodies in decades. It is anticipated an appeal may follow in due course.

Background / preceding case law

In order to fully consider the impact of this decision, it is necessary to revisit a few of the most pertinent decisions in this area.

In Osman v United Kingdom (23452/94), O, a teenage boy, was seriously injured and his father, F, was killed after being shot by P, O's former teacher, who had become obsessed by O. Prior to the shooting, a number of disturbing incidents had occurred, including damage to O's home, in respect of which P had been interviewed by the school authorities and the police. P, who had also shot and injured a deputy headmaster and killed his son, was convicted of manslaughter. O and his mother, M, brought an action for negligence against the police in respect of their conduct of the investigation into P's activities. The Court of Appeal ordered the action to be struck out as disclosing no reasonable cause of action on the grounds that, following the ruling in Hill v Chief Constable of West Yorkshire [1989] A.C. 53 [1988] 4 WLUK 228, for reasons of public policy, no action in negligence could lie against the police in respect of the investigation and suppression of crime. O and M applied to the ECHR, contending that the state had failed to protect the lives of O and F and to protect the family from harassment contrary to the European Convention on Human Rights 1950 Art.2 and Art.8, and that O and M had been denied access to a court in respect of that failure, contrary to Art.6(1).

It was held that (1) there had been no violation of Art.2. The state was not in breach of its positive obligation to take preventative measures to protect an individual whose life was at risk from another, as the requirement that the police knew or ought to have known that there was a real and immediate threat to O and F's lives from P was not met, since none of the incidents prior to the shootings were life-threatening, there was no proof that P was responsible for those acts and there was no evidence that P was mentally ill or prone to violence. (2) For the same reasons, the state was not in breach of its positive obligations under Art.8, and (3) there had been a violation of Art.6(1).

This case led to the police adopting the terminology of "Osman warnings" or "Osman letters". An Osman warning is utilised in circumstances where the police believe that there is a real and immediate risk to...