Police – Here's To You, Mrs Robinson

The Supreme Court has allowed the appeal of a Claimant who was injured by police officers during the arrest of a drug dealer.

The Supreme Court found the positive action by the police had resulted in a duty of care between the parties and that the police had breached this duty, thus overturning the decision of the Court of Appeal.

The facts

DS Willan had spotted Mr Williams dealing drugs in a park in Huddersfield. He chose not to make an arrest, instead waiting for backup. Three other plain clothes officers arrived. It was agreed that Willan and another officer would approach and arrest Williams outside a shop. Having identified the risk of escape, the other two officers were positioned in the opposite direction to prevent escape and then assist in the arrest.

The evidence of Willan at the initial Trial was that he was aware of the potential harm to members of the public should Williams attempt to escape, and, as in any situation, he considered the risk to those nearby. However, there was a need for urgency in effecting the arrest, in order to ensure that Williams had possession of the drugs.

During the attempted arrest, Willian and the officers tussled with Williams, moving up the street and colliding with the Claimant. The other two officers arrived "three seconds later" to conclude the arrest.

Previous decisions

The trial judge found that the officers had acted negligently, but dismissed the claim on the basis that the decision of Hill v Chief Constable of West Yorkshire [1989] A.C. 53 conferred immunity on the officers against claims in negligence.

The Court of Appeal did not share the view of the Trial judge regarding "blanket immunity", but found that the test for negligence established in Caparo v Dickman [1990] 2 A.C. 605, did not impose a duty as it was not fair, just and reasonable to do so. The wider public interest outweighed the interests of Mrs Robinson in this instance.

Furthermore, the appeal court judge stated that, had it been necessary, she would have felt obliged to overturn the Trial judge's finding that the officers had been negligent.

Supreme Court decision

Lord Reed delivered the leading judgment, in which it was reiterated that there is no general rule that the police are not under any duty of care - the aforementioned "blanket immunity" - when discharging their function of preventing and investigating crime.

It was found that establishing the existence of a duty of care, does not depend on an application of the...