When do police actions amount to negligence?
In Smith v Chief Constable of Sussex Police (CLW/08/12/31) the Court of Appeal held that, whilst it is not reasonable to expect the police to answer in damages to every individual whose life or health might have been spared or saved by more competent police work, where someones life or safety has been so firmly placed in the hands of the police as to make it incumbent on them to take at least elementary steps to protect it, unexcused neglect to do so can sound in damages if harm of the material kind results.
In Smith v Chief Constable of Sussex Police (CLW/08/12/31) the Court of Appeal held that, whilst it is not reasonable to expect the police to answer in damages to every individual whose life or health might have been spared or saved by more competent police work, where someones life or safety has been so firmly placed in the hands of the police as to make it incumbent on them to take at least elementary steps to protect it, unexcused neglect to do so can sound in damages if harm of the material kind results.
Where, therefore, it was alleged that the claimant had repeatedly reported to the police threats to kill him by his former partner, that the police had done nothing to protect him, and that his former partner had subsequently attacked him causing serious injuries, it could not be said that the claimants action against the police in negligence was doomed to failure.
Given, in particular, the impact of Article 2 of the European Convention on Human Rights (right to life) on the jurisprudence governing the liability of the police, and the need to decide in each case whether it is fair, just and reasonable to impose liability, the claimants case was at least arguable on the alleged facts, and so the decision to strike out his claim would be reversed.