251:. He noted that it "has been said almost too frequently to require repetition that foreseeability of likely harm is not in itself a sufficient test of liability in negligence. Some further ingredient is invariably needed to establish the requisite proximity of relationship between plaintiff and defendant, and all the circumstances of the case must be carefully considered and analysed in order to ascertain whether such an ingredient is present." He then considered at length the decision in
244:. However, he went on to note, "a chief officer of police has a wide discretion as to the manner in which the duty is discharged. It is for him to decide how available resources should be deployed, whether particular lines of inquiry should or should not be followed and even whether or not certain crimes should be prosecuted." Accordingly, while a chief police officer has an obligation to enforce the law, there were no specific requirements as to the manner in which they must do so.
28:
295:
That belief is entitled to respect and understanding. Damages cannot compensate for the brutal extinction of a young life." However, he too concurred that no duty of care arose. His judgment emphasised much more strongly the public policy element; he expressed concern that the court "would have to decide whether an inspector is to be condemned for failing to display the acumen of
195:. This included a letter sent by one Trevor Birdsall, a long-time associate of Sutcliffe, who stated that Sutcliffe had a fixation with prostitutes and that Birdsall had reason to believe he might be the killer. Although Birdsall's letter was sent after Hill's death, it was ignored for months, which was seen as symptomatic of the systemic failings of the investigation.
327:
did not confer generally immunity upon the police, only that a duty of care would not arise without special circumstances. Where the police themselves had created the danger, then they would have a duty of care. Commentators suggest that the later decisions "made significant inroads" into the general
287:
He held that as a general matter of public policy, the police should not owe a duty to the public at large in tort to apprehend criminals expeditiously, for "the imposition of liability may lead to the exercise of a function being carried on in a detrimentally defensive frame of mind." Further, he
294:
gave a short concurring judgment. In his characteristic fashion, Lord
Templeman opened with an emotional statement: "The appellant, Mrs. Hill, is tormented with the unshakeable belief that her daughter would be alive today if the respondent the West Yorkshire police force had been more efficient.
190:
in relation to its investigation of the murders, and in particular officers' fixation upon a message purportedly from the killer which was later shown to be a hoax. Police officers interviewed
Sutcliffe as a suspect nine times during their investigation. A number of the same failings would be
269:
case and which led to the imposition of liability are here lacking. Sutcliffe was never in the custody of the police force. Miss Hill was one of a vast number of the female general public who might be at risk from his activities but was at no special distinctive risk in relation to
183:, was murdered in Leeds on 17 November 1980. Sutcliffe had been arrested for drunk-driving in April 1980. While awaiting trial for this, he killed two more women (including Hill) and attacked three others who survived. He was eventually arrested in January 1981.
202:, the courts proceeded on the hypothetical assumption that these criticisms were all true, but without making any findings of act in that regard. The Chief Constable was named as defendant in the action pursuant to section 48(1) of the
278:
That is sufficient for the disposal of the appeal. But in my opinion there is another reason why an action for damages in negligence should not lie against the police in circumstances such as those of the present case, and that is
209:
A different view from
Tofaris and Steel where the duty to prevent harm will only occur when the defendants status creates the obligation to protect the claimant.
583:
137:
95:
44:
103:
226:. After reviewing the background facts, Lord Keith reviewed the law, and noted that there was no question that a police officer may be liable in
261:, AC 1004. He noted that the two cases were similar, but held that no duty of care arose between West Yorkshire Police and Ms Hill. He held:
553:
156:
107:
223:
91:
530:
389:
291:
253:
99:
578:
349:
573:
312:
248:
160:
119:
179:
killed 13 young women and attempted to kill seven others. His last victim, Jacqueline Hill, a 20-year-old student at
448:
Tofaris S and Steel S, ‘NEGLIGENCE LIABILITY FOR OMISSIONS AND THE POLICE’ (2016) 75 The
Cambridge Law Journal 128)
405:
588:
427:
354:
230:
to a person who is injured as a direct result of their acts or omissions. He further noted that under the
145:
55:
Hill (Administratrix of the Estate of
Jacqueline Hill, deceased) v Chief Constable of West Yorkshire
554:"Case Comment: Robinson v Chief Constable of West Yorkshire Police [2018] UKSC 4, Part One"
27:
381:
385:
288:
was concerned about the time and manpower it would take for the police to defend such claims.
344:
180:
148:
that their negligence in failing to apprehend the killer resulted in her daughter's death.
296:
203:
199:
192:
187:
176:
152:
141:
531:"New Judgment: Robinson v Chief Constable of West Yorkshire Police [2018] UKSC 4"
159:. The claim was struck out on the alternative bases of (i) the police owed no specific
140:
in relation to the claim by the mother of
Jacqueline Hill (one of the last victims of
567:
280:
164:
133:
428:"Hill v Chief Constable of West Yorkshire [1988] 2 WLR 1049 House of Lords"
320:
258:
323:, coincidentally also a claim against West Yorkshire Police. The court held that
151:
The House of Lords unanimously struck out the claim as disclosing no justiciable
234:, police officers owe to the general public a duty to enforce the criminal law (
300:
231:
198:
Because the application was made to strike out on the basis that there was no
240:
406:"Hill v Chief Constable Of West Yorkshire [1988] 2 WLR 1049"
155:, upholding the decision of the judge at first instance and of the
299:
and whether a constable is to be condemned for being as obtuse as
33:
265:
It is plain that vital characteristics which were present in the
236:
R v
Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis, Ex parte Blackburn
227:
247:
He then reviewed the position in relation to establishing a
188:
extensive failings on the part of West
Yorkshire Police
317:
Robinson v Chief
Constable of West Yorkshire Police
113:
87:
82:
68:
60:
50:
40:
20:
276:
263:
163:to a member of the general public, and (ii) on
8:
186:In her claim, Ms Hill's mother pointed to
26:
17:
238:2 QB 118), enforceable by an action for
136:, AC 53 was a judicial decision of the
129:Hill v Chief Constable of West Yorkshire
21:Hill v Chief Constable of West Yorkshire
372:
370:
366:
378:Charlesworth & Percy on Negligence
7:
144:, the "Yorkshire Ripper") against
14:
254:Home Office v Dorset Yacht Co Ltd
191:highlighted subsequently in the
584:1988 in United Kingdom case law
222:The lead decision was given by
350:Warren v. District of Columbia
1:
552:Ian Skelt (8 February 2018).
313:United Kingdom Supreme Court
328:public policy exclusion in
605:
315:reviewed the decision in
118:
32:Milgarth Police Station,
25:
104:Lord Oliver of Aylmerton
96:Lord Brandon of Oakbrook
175:Between 1975 and 1980,
430:. e-lawresources.co.uk
355:Osman v United Kingdom
285:
272:
134:[1987] UKHL 12
108:Lord Goff of Chieveley
579:English tort case law
321:[2018] UKSC 4
274:He went on to state:
259:[1970] UKHL 2
146:West Yorkshire Police
574:House of Lords cases
224:Lord Keith of Kinkel
92:Lord Keith of Kinkel
384:. 2010. para 2-88.
382:Sweet & Maxwell
533:. 8 February 2018
380:(12th ed.).
125:
124:
596:
558:
557:
549:
543:
542:
540:
538:
527:
521:
518:
512:
509:
503:
500:
494:
491:
485:
482:
476:
473:
467:
464:
458:
455:
449:
446:
440:
439:
437:
435:
424:
418:
417:
415:
413:
402:
396:
395:
374:
345:English tort law
181:Leeds University
83:Court membership
30:
18:
604:
603:
599:
598:
597:
595:
594:
593:
589:Peter Sutcliffe
564:
563:
562:
561:
551:
550:
546:
536:
534:
529:
528:
524:
519:
515:
510:
506:
501:
497:
492:
488:
483:
479:
474:
470:
465:
461:
456:
452:
447:
443:
433:
431:
426:
425:
421:
411:
409:
404:
403:
399:
392:
376:
375:
368:
363:
341:
335:
309:
297:Sherlock Holmes
220:
215:
204:Police Act 1964
200:cause of action
177:Peter Sutcliffe
173:
157:Court of Appeal
153:cause of action
142:Peter Sutcliffe
106:
102:
98:
94:
77:
75:
73:
36:
12:
11:
5:
602:
600:
592:
591:
586:
581:
576:
566:
565:
560:
559:
544:
522:
513:
504:
495:
486:
477:
468:
459:
450:
441:
419:
397:
390:
365:
364:
362:
359:
358:
357:
352:
347:
340:
337:
308:
305:
292:Lord Templeman
219:
218:House of Lords
216:
214:
211:
172:
169:
138:House of Lords
123:
122:
116:
115:
111:
110:
100:Lord Templeman
89:
88:Judges sitting
85:
84:
80:
79:
70:
66:
65:
62:
58:
57:
52:
51:Full case name
48:
47:
45:House of Lords
42:
38:
37:
31:
23:
22:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
601:
590:
587:
585:
582:
580:
577:
575:
572:
571:
569:
555:
548:
545:
532:
526:
523:
520:AC 53 at 64F.
517:
514:
511:AC 53 at 64C.
508:
505:
502:AC 53 at 63G.
499:
496:
493:AC 53 at 63D.
490:
487:
484:AC 53 at 63A.
481:
478:
475:AC 53 at 62C.
472:
469:
466:AC 53 at 60B.
463:
460:
457:AC 53 at 59E.
454:
451:
445:
442:
429:
423:
420:
408:. Law Teacher
407:
401:
398:
393:
391:9780414040151
387:
383:
379:
373:
371:
367:
360:
356:
353:
351:
348:
346:
343:
342:
338:
336:
333:
331:
326:
322:
318:
314:
306:
304:
302:
298:
293:
289:
284:
282:
281:public policy
275:
271:
268:
262:
260:
256:
255:
250:
245:
243:
242:
237:
233:
229:
225:
217:
212:
210:
207:
205:
201:
196:
194:
193:Byford Report
189:
184:
182:
178:
170:
168:
166:
165:public policy
162:
158:
154:
149:
147:
143:
139:
135:
131:
130:
121:
117:
112:
109:
105:
101:
97:
93:
90:
86:
81:
71:
67:
64:28 April 1988
63:
59:
56:
53:
49:
46:
43:
39:
35:
29:
24:
19:
16:
547:
535:. Retrieved
525:
516:
507:
498:
489:
480:
471:
462:
453:
444:
432:. Retrieved
422:
410:. Retrieved
400:
377:
334:
329:
324:
316:
310:
307:Significance
290:
286:
277:
273:
267:Dorset Yacht
266:
264:
252:
249:duty of care
246:
239:
235:
221:
208:
197:
185:
174:
161:duty of care
150:
128:
127:
126:
120:Duty of care
76:2 All ER 238
54:
15:
568:Categories
537:8 February
434:8 February
412:8 February
301:Dr. Watson
232:common law
78:2 WLR 1049
167:grounds.
69:Citations
339:See also
241:mandamus
213:Judgment
114:Keywords
72:UKHL 12
61:Decided
388:
361:Notes
319:
270:them.
257:
171:Facts
132:
74:AC 53
41:Court
34:Leeds
539:2018
436:2018
414:2018
386:ISBN
330:Hill
325:Hill
311:The
228:tort
303:."
570::
369:^
332:.
206:.
556:.
541:.
438:.
416:.
394:.
283:.
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.
