The Human Rights Act 1999: Opening the Door to Negligence Actions against the Police?

Bailey S.H. Harris D.J. Jones B.L. (1995) Civil Liberties; Cases and Materials, 4th edn, Butterworths.

Beddard R. (1995) Human Rights and Europe, 3rd edn, Grotius.

Bernstein R. (1999) “Police Immunity Undermined”, Solicitors Journal, January 8.

Coppel J. (1999) The Human Rights Act 1998: Enforcing the European Convention in Domestic Courts, John Wiley.

Cheney D. Dickson L. Fitzpatrick J. Uglow S. (1999) Criminal Justice and the Human Rights Act 1998, Jordans

Clayton R. and Tomlinson H. (1997) Police Actions, John Wiley.

del Carmen R.V. (1991) Civil Liberties in American Policing, Brady.

Harrison J. and Crag S. (1995) Police Misconduct: Legal Remedies, Legal Action Group.

Jackson R.M. and Powell J.L. (1997) Jackson and Powell on Professional Negligence, 4th edn, Sweet & Maxwell.

Percy R.A. and Walton C.T. (1997) Charlesworth and Percy on Negligence, 9th edn, Sweet & Maxwell.

Shorts E. and de Than C. (1998) Civil Liberties — Legal Principles of Individual Freedom, 1st edn, Sweet & Maxwell.

Wadham J. and Mountfield H. (1999) Blackstone's Guide to the Human Rights Act 1998, Blackstone.

Woolf Lord (1995) Access to Justice: Interim Report to the Lord Chancellor on the Civil Justice System in England and Wales, London: HMSO.

Case Ref 87/1997/871/1083.

Keegan v. Ireland A/290 [1990} 18 EHRR 342.

Delcourt v. Belgium A/11 (1979) 1 EHRR 355.

Golder v. UK A/18 (1979–80) 1 EHRR 524.

Dombo Beheer v. The Netherlands A/274 (1994) 18 EHRR 213.

McMichael v. UK A/308, (1995) 20 EHRR 205.

The Sunday Times, March 14, 1999.

X (Minors) v. Beds. County Council [1995] 2AC 633, HL.

Eg, Rigby v. the CC Northants Police [1985] 1 WLR 1242 where the police failed to take sufficient precautions in using smoke ‘bombs’ and caused a fire which destroyed the owner's gun shop business; Kirkham v. CC GMP [1990] 3 All ER 246 in which a known suicide risk was not cared for sufficiently, thereby allowing him the opportunity of killing himself.

Eg, negligent driving Woods v. Richards [1977] RTR 201 DC; and even when in hot pursuit of suspected criminals Marshall v. Osmond [1983] QB 1034 CA. Also see Knightley v. Johns [1982] 1 WLR 349, CA negligence in giving orders and directing traffic.

[1989] 1 All ER 1025.

[1989] 1 AC 53.

In Hill this was explained as “…a great deal of police time, trouble and expense might be expected to have to be put into the preparation of the defence to the action and attendance of witnesses at the trial. The result could be a significant diversion of police manpower and attention from their most important function, that of the suppression of crime.” Also in Swinney v. the CC Northumbria Police [1996] The Times, March 28, where negligence was proved, and there were swinging criticisms of the police, but public policy considerations precluded the award of damages.

[1969] 1 AC 191.

[1970] AC 1004.

Oxford v. ATS case.

Knightley v. Johns [1982] 1 WLR 349; Kirkham v. Merseyside Police 3 All ER 246.

Capital Counties v. Hampshire FCDA[1997] 3 WLR 331.

Rigby above, also Kirkham.

[1994] 1 WLR 1124.

Silcott v. MPC (1996) The Times, July 9.

South v. Maryland, 59 US [18 HOW] 396 [1896]. The majority of states in the USA public duty doctrine follows a largely identical system of liability for breaches of duty of care and requires that police assume a “special relationship” or an assumption of responsibility before there is any liability for a failure to protect as per the Osman circumstances; see Simack v. Risely 804 F 2d 143 [7th Cir. 1986].

Ashingdane v. UK [1985] 7 EHRR 528.

[1995] 3 All ER 353 HL.

In Steyn LJ's judgment “…the interests of the whole community are better served by not imposing a duty of care on the CPS. …such a duty of care would tend to have an inhibiting effect on the discharge… of its central function of prosecuting crime. The CPS would have to spend valuable time and scarce resources in order to prevent law suits in negligence against the CPS.”

Ie, death or serious injury, serious loss or damage to property or where public policy requires that there should be a cause of action, eg, Swinney in which the life of an informant was put at risk by the careless control of confidential information.