Michael and others (Appellants) v The Chief Constable of South Wales Police PDF

Preview

Summary

Download Michael and others (Appellants) v The Chief Constable of South Wales Police PDF

Description

Michael and others (Appellants) v The Chief Constable of South Wales Police Facts Ms Michael informed the Gwent Police operator that her ex-partner had found her with someone else, bitten her and threatened to hit her. There was an issue as to whether the operator heard the death threat. The operator then spoke to her counterpart, Mr Gould, in the emergency control room at South Wales Police and said that the expartner had threatened to hit Ms Michael but did not mention the threat to kill. Due to the omission to mention the threat to kill the call was downgraded to G2 seriousness. It was alleged that the decision to downgrade the priority level was made by Mr Gould. The officers spent some time collecting additional information. At 2.43am, Gwent Police received another call from Ms Michael. Screaming was heard but it stopped. The call was graded as needing an immediate response but when officers arrived at 2.51am, Ms Michael had been murdered. Issue Ms Michael’s family and estate brought claims against the Chief Constables of the Gwent Police and the South Wales Police for negligence at common law and a failure to protect her life in breach of the rights conferred by the ECHR, art 2. The police sought a strike out or summary judgment. Held Lord Toulson gave the majority judgement and dismissed the main three submissions of counsel. Issue 1: Intervener’s liability principle  Argument that the police owe a duty of care in negligence where they are aware or ought reasonably to be aware of a threat to the life or physical safety of an identifiable person, or member of an identifiable small group o Rejected because… 1. why confined to physical injury or death or to particular victims and not others? 2. speculative as to effect of imposing liability and may distort police priorities 3. financial implications for the police and/or public Issue 2: Lord Bingham’s liability principle  Argument that the police owe a duty when a member of the public gives the police apparently credible evidence that a third party, whose identity and whereabouts are known, presents a specific and imminent threat to his life or physical safety o Rejected because it would be unreasonable to draw diving lines between… 1. who reports the threat 2. whether the threat is credible and imminent or credible but not imminent 3. whether the whereabouts of the threat-maker are known or not 4. whether the threat was aimed at physical injury or not o It should be for Parliament to determine the existence and scope of such a compensatory scheme Issue 3: Assumption of Responsibility



Lord Toulson rejected the argument that the call handler assumed responsibility because  The call handler gave no promise as to how quickly the police would respond and,  did not advise or instruct her to remain in her house o Therefore, might we be led to believe that in cases of the police assuming responsibility in such cases there must be specific assurances of time or instructions given to the caller  Might this discourage the call handler from giving any specifics?  Is this necessarily bad?

Lord Kerr gave the leading dissenting opinion in the case Lord Kerr’s opinion focused on the fact that there should have been sufficient proximity found to allow negligent liability for the defendant. Proximity  There should be recognised a sufficient proximity of relationship, such as to create a duty on the police in negligence, where: 1. there is a closeness of association between the claimant and the defendant, such as where information is communicated to the defendant 2. the information should convey to the defendant that serious harm is likely to befall the intended victim if urgent action is not taken 3. the defendant might reasonably be expected to provide protection in those circumstances 4. the defendant should be able to provide for the intended victim’s protection without unnecessary danger to himself  On these facts, there was clearly a sufficient proximity of relationship between the police and Ms Michael...