Michael v Chief Constable of South Wales Police [2015]
Share
Michael v Chief Constable of South Wales Police [2015] UKSC 2 is a significant case that addresses the duty of care owed by the police in the context of preventing and investigating crimes. The case involves Ms Michael, who contacted the police reporting a threat from her ex-boyfriend. The central question was whether the police owed a duty of care to protect Ms Michael from the threat.
Ms Michael reported a threat from her ex-boyfriend to the police, indicating potential harm. The call was initially graded as requiring immediate response but was later downgraded in urgency, leading to a delayed police response. Tragically, Ms Michael was brutally attacked and killed by her ex-boyfriend before the police arrived.
The key issue was whether the police owed a duty of care to Ms Michael, and if so, whether they breached that duty. The House of Lords ruled that there was no duty of care owed by the police to Ms Michael and dismissed the claim in negligence.
The House of Lords emphasised the application of ordinary negligence principles to public authorities, highlighting the incremental approach established by the Caparo v Dickman [1990] for determining the existence of a duty of care.
The court addressed the liability of public authorities, noting that, as a general rule, English law does not impose liability on a defendant for harm caused by a third party. However, exceptions to the omissions rule may apply to public authorities, particularly when they are responsible for creating the danger, exercise control over the third party, or assume a specific responsibility for the claimant, but these exceptions were not found in this case.
Regarding the liability of the police, the court stressed that the mere establishment of a protective system from public resources does not automatically create liability if the system fails. The duty of the police for the preservation of peace was deemed to be owed to the public at large, rather than forming a close or special relationship with individuals.
Ms Michael reported a threat from her ex-boyfriend to the police, indicating potential harm. The call was initially graded as requiring immediate response but was later downgraded in urgency, leading to a delayed police response. Tragically, Ms Michael was brutally attacked and killed by her ex-boyfriend before the police arrived.
The key issue was whether the police owed a duty of care to Ms Michael, and if so, whether they breached that duty. The House of Lords ruled that there was no duty of care owed by the police to Ms Michael and dismissed the claim in negligence.
The House of Lords emphasised the application of ordinary negligence principles to public authorities, highlighting the incremental approach established by the Caparo v Dickman [1990] for determining the existence of a duty of care.
The court addressed the liability of public authorities, noting that, as a general rule, English law does not impose liability on a defendant for harm caused by a third party. However, exceptions to the omissions rule may apply to public authorities, particularly when they are responsible for creating the danger, exercise control over the third party, or assume a specific responsibility for the claimant, but these exceptions were not found in this case.
Regarding the liability of the police, the court stressed that the mere establishment of a protective system from public resources does not automatically create liability if the system fails. The duty of the police for the preservation of peace was deemed to be owed to the public at large, rather than forming a close or special relationship with individuals.
