Have a question?
033 3772 0409

Personal Injury Solicitors

Robinson and Police Negligence - Reverting to the Original Law (20 August 2019)

Date: 20/08/2019
Duncan Lewis, Personal Injury Solicitors, Robinson and Police Negligence - Reverting to the Original Law

The Legal background

The previous legal rule when considering claims of personal injury and negligence against the police has been substantially clarified in the recent case of Robinson v Chief Constable of West Yorkshire Police. The infamous rule, relates to suing the police for the negligent undertaking of their duties, and has commonly been thought to prove as a blanket ban on suing them for negligence. In the case of Robinson, it was decided by the judge at the Court of First Instance that because of this rule, although the officers’ actions had been negligent, the Claimant did not have grounds for bringing a successful personal injury claim. This decision was appealed, and made its way up to the Supreme Court.


Facts of the case

Robinson concerned a case where four police officers had attempted to arrest a drug dealer on a busy high street. The Claimant was a 78 year old woman who happened to be in close proximity to the arrest. During the arrest, a struggle broke out and both the suspect and the police officers fell to the ground, and in the process the suspect hit and injured the Claimant. Importantly, prior to the arrest taking place, two of the officers conducted a risk assessment of the situation having seen the suspect moments before and had called for support from two other officers in anticipation that the arrest may present difficulties.


The current law

This case was appealed all the way up to the Supreme Court, where it was decided that the rule did not create a ban of suing the police for negligence.

In previous cases, the courts made reference to the fact that where the police were constantly concerned with being sued for not properly investigating and preventing crime, their ability to effectively carry out such duties could ultimately be hindered. This arguably demonstrates how the previous rule, had been conceived.

It had also been referenced in previous cases that “…it will not be fair, just and reasonable to impose a duty as long as the police are acting within reason, the public would rather the police take action to ensure the public are safe and criminals are off the street.” On closer inspection however, it was decided in the same case that the point of the case was “…to repudiate the idea that there is a single test which can be applied in all cases in order to determine whether a duty of care exists, and instead to adopt an approach based, in the manner characteristic of the common law, on precedent, and on the development of the law incrementally and by analogy with established authorities” (Michael v Chief Constable of South Wales Police). This means every case should be assessed on its own merits.

It was also decided in the case of Robinson that it was not right for the courts to determine on a case by case basis when it was fair to impose a duty of care, and the usual rule should be that the a duty of care should apply to every case. The exception would be where the court may find it unjust or unreasonable to impose a duty. The instant case did not fit this description, and therefore the usual rules of negligence applied.

However another difficulty in proving the Claimant’s case in Robinson was that it was in fact the criminal who had caused the injuries to Mrs Robinson by falling on her. Therefore it was argued by the defendant that this was a claim concerning the suspect falling on the Claimant, and the police should not be at fault. On this point, and to further complicate proving the link of liability in this case, it is a general principle that public authorities owe no duty of care to individuals for harm caused by the conduct of third parties (Smith v Littlewoods Organisation Ltd). There are exceptions to this rule however none of them applied in the instant case. As such, a decision needed to be made as to whether it was the police who injured the Claimant, or the arrestee.


Conclusion

Upon again inspecting previous case law, the cases in which the police were not held to be negligent because of public policy were exceptions to the general rule rather than the norm. It seems, therefore, that the approach which has been commonly understood to determine the police’s liability for a claim of personal injury is incorrect. This was the approach taken in Robinson.

It was decided that the arrestee falling on Mrs Robinson did not break the chain of causation. It was sufficient for the purpose of establishing causation because it was a foreseeable risk that Mrs Robinson would be injured, especially considering that the officers had created a plan in contemplation of the fact that the arrestee would likely put up a struggle. They should have considered that the area needed to be clear when the arrest took place, as pedestrians were nearby. The court decided it was therefore the act of the police officers attempting to detain the arrestee that caused the injury, and not the failure of the officers in protecting her from the fall. Consequently, the Claimant was successful in her claim for personal injury against the police.

Moreover, this clarification of the law could reach to and impact upon other areas of law concerning the liability of the police, especially in consideration of the statements made in respect of the liability of public authorities in Robinson. We can see that priority was given to judging these types of cases by the default law, and not public policy considerations, as was previously thought to be the correct approach in such cases.

This case may well be a milestone in future cases, when considering the liability of the police as defendants in litigation claims and is a welcomed decision for Claimant lawyers in personal injury cases involving the police and otherwise. The police now must carefully consider in their everyday actives, the potential injury that could be caused to regular citizens or else risk being successfully sued - now more than ever.


Author Ammar Sotta is a trainee solicitor in the Personal Injury and Clinical Negligence department, based in the Harrow office where he works under the supervision of director, Rebecca Thomas.




Duncan Lewis Personal Injury Solicitors

Our personal injury team have extensive experience representing clients who have sustained injuries as a result of faulty products, or accidents at work, in the home or in a public place. It is the team’s tenacity which has got the department recognised in the Legal 500 2019 edition, which praises "[t]he 'highly competent, hardworking and continually improving' personal injury department at Duncan Lewis Solicitors [that] 'makes clients feel at ease' and 'fights hard for them', applying 'great tactical astuteness'.

Personal injury claimants usually have three years from the date of the injury to make a claim for compensation. Because of the limitation period for personal injury claims, it is important to seek legal advice from Duncan Lewis personal injury solicitors as soon as possible.

Family members can call Duncan Lewis for advice on making a claim if someone close to them has been injured and is still recovering in hospital.

For expert legal advice call one of our experienced Personal Injury solicitors on 0333 772 0409.


For all Personal Injury related matter contact us now.Contact Us

Call us now on 033 3772 0409 or click here to send online enquiry.
Duncan Lewis is the trading name of Duncan Lewis (Solicitors) Limited. Registered Office is 143-149 Fenchurch St, London, EC3M 6BL. Company Reg. No. 3718422. VAT Reg. No. 718729013. A list of the company's Directors is displayed at the registered offices address. Authorised and Regulated by the Solicitors Regulation Authority . Offices all across London and in major cities in the UK. ©Duncan Lewis >>Legal Disclaimer, Copyright & Privacy Policy. Duncan Lewis do not accept service by email.