Hill v Chief Constable of West Yorkshire PDF

Preview

Summary

Notes: Hill v Chief Constable of West Yorkshire [1989]...

Description

Hill v Chief Constable of West Yorkshire [1989] Facts 

 



Claim brought by Ms Hill, mother of last victim of Peter Sutcliffe, the ‘Yorkshire Ripper’ o Committed 13 murders and 8 attempted murders over a 5-year period o He had been questioned by police and released and had subsequently murdered again. 20-year-old victim Jacqueline Hill was last victim – murdered Nov. 1980 – Sutcliffe was arrested in Jan 1981 and confessed- convicted in May 1981 of inter alia (among other things) the murder of Hill Ms. Hill claimed the police had been negligent in their detention and detection of Sutcliffe – claimed on behalf of daughter for damages on ground of negligence – loss of expectation of life and pain and suffering o Sued under s48(1) Police Act 1964 – chief officer of police for any police area should be liable in respect of torts committed by constables under his direction and control in the performance of their functions Defendant applied to have claim struck out on grounds there was no cause of action since no duty of care was owed by police in the detection of crime o Reasonable to infer all crimes were committed by the same man o Foreseeable, if not apprehended, he would commit further offences of the same nature o Accordingly, the duty of the defendant and all officers in his force to use their best endeavours and skill to protect the public who might otherwise be future victims

Judgement: police were under no liability in negligence  

 

Court admitted there were a number of mistakes in investigations which would not have been committed had the police exercised a reasonable degree of care – Hill wouldn’t have died Question of law – whether individual members of a police force, in the course of carrying out their functions of controlling / preventing crime, owe a duty of care to individual members of the public who may suffer from the activity of criminals Lord Templeman – ‘the court would have to decide whether an inspector is to be condemned for failing to display the acumen of Sherlock Holmes and whether a constable is to be condemned for being as obtuse as Dr Watson’ Anns two-stage test (Lord Wilberforce) for duty of negligence applied – defendant, having investigated murders, owed his potential future victims a duty to do so with reasonable care

Policy concerns 

Judgement that police were immune from any action of this kind o Insufficient proximity



 



o Policy concerns: defensive practices & diversion The House of Lords refused to impose a duty of care as there was insufficient proximity between any woman, as a potential victim of a crime, and the police. o Dorset applied – no liability of home office or deficiency o Lord Keith - no general duty of care owed to individual members of the public by the responsible authorities On policy grounds, the threat of liability in such cases would lead to the police adopting defensive practices and may result in both a waste of resources and inefficient use of police manpower Sense of public duty which motivates police forces is unlikely to be reinforced by the imposition of liability regarding the investigation of crime – sometimes make mistakes but they do apply their best endeavours o From time to time they make mistakes in the exercise of that function, but it is not to be doubted that they apply their best endeavours to the performance of it Police being convicted of negligence – great deal of time, trouble and expense put into preparation for trial – great diversion from police manpower and attention to their most important function: the suppression of crime o Lord Templeman – the threat of litigation against a police force would not make a police man more efficient – would distract from duties...