Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Judges
- LORD OLIVER
- LORD BRANDON
- LORD TEMPLEMAN
- LORD DIPLOCK
- LORD KEITH
- LORD GOFF
- LORD WILBERFORCE
See more information ...
Click here to read the full judgment
Hill v. Chief Constable of West Yorkshire
Smart Summary
Factual and Procedural Background
Between 1975 and 1980 Individual A carried out a series of violent attacks on young women, culminating in the murder of the Decedent on 17 November 1980 in The City. The Plaintiff, the Decedent’s mother and administratrix of her estate, sued the Defendant—the Chief Constable of The State—for negligence under section 48(1) of the Police Act 1964. She alleged that officers under the Defendant’s control failed to exercise reasonable care and skill to identify and arrest Individual A, thereby exposing future victims, including the Decedent, to foreseeable harm.
The Defendant applied to strike out the statement of claim under R.S.C., Ord. 18, r. 19. Judge [Lawson], sitting in the High Court on 19 December 1985, granted the application. The Court of Appeal (Fox LJ, Glidewell LJ and Judge [Cumming-Bruce]) affirmed that decision on 19 February 1987. The Plaintiff obtained leave to appeal to the House of Lords, where the matter came before Judge [Keith], Judge [Brandon], Judge [Templeman], Judge [Oliver] and Judge [Goff]. On 28 April 1988 the Lords affirmed the Court of Appeal and dismissed the appeal.
Legal Issues Presented
- Whether, in investigating and suppressing crime, police officers owe a common-law duty of care to individual members of the public such that breach can found an action in negligence.
- Whether public-policy considerations preclude the imposition of negligence liability on a police force for alleged investigative failures.
- Whether the Plaintiff’s statement of claim disclosed a reasonable cause of action or was rightly struck out.
Arguments of the Parties
Appellant's Arguments
- Foreseeability: Once the Defendant elected to investigate Individual A’s crimes, it was reasonably foreseeable that failure to apprehend him would expose future victims, including the Decedent, to harm.
- Analogy with Anns v. Merton LBC: Just as a local authority that decides to carry out a building inspection owes a duty to future occupants, a police force that undertakes an investigation owes a duty to potential victims to perform that investigation with reasonable care.
- Application of the two-stage test in Anns: The relationship between police and potential victims supplied proximity; no policy factors outweighed the imposition of a duty.
Respondent's Arguments
The opinion does not contain a detailed account of the Respondent’s legal arguments.
Table of Precedents Cited
| Precedent |
Rule or Principle Cited For |
Application by the Court |
| Knightly v. Johns [1982] 1 W.L.R. 349 |
Police officers can be liable in negligence for direct acts or omissions. |
Cited to acknowledge that individual officers may be liable in tort, but distinguished from systemic investigative failures. |
| Rigby v. Chief Constable of Northamptonshire [1985] 1 W.L.R. 1242 |
Liability for operational negligence by police. |
Reinforces that direct, operational negligence differs from policy-level investigative decisions. |
| R. v. Dytham [1979] Q.B. 722 |
Criminal liability for wilful neglect of duty by a constable. |
Cited to show that police owe public duties enforceable by criminal law, not necessarily private duties in tort. |
| R. v. Commissioner of Police, ex p. Blackburn [1968] 2 Q.B. 118 |
Police owe a public-law duty to enforce the law. |
Used to illustrate the breadth of police discretion and the public—not private—nature of that duty. |
| Anns v. Merton LBC [1978] A.C. 728 |
Two-stage test for duty of care; liability after discretionary decision to act. |
Appellant relied on it; the Lords distinguished the present facts, finding insufficient proximity and overriding policy concerns. |
| Donoghue v. Stevenson [1932] A.C. 562 |
Neighbour principle—foreseeability alone not enough. |
Court reiterated that foreseeability must be coupled with proximity and policy considerations. |
| Dorset Yacht Co. v. Home Office [1970] A.C. 1004 |
Liability for failure to control third parties when a special relationship exists. |
Distinguished: unlike the yacht owners, the Decedent was not in a class at distinctive risk; no comparable proximity. |
| Yuen Kun Yeu v. Attorney General of Hong Kong [1988] A.C. 175 |
Narrow scope for policy-based negation of duty (second stage of Anns). |
Supported the conclusion that policy can independently negate a prima facie duty. |
| Rondel v. Worsley [1969] 1 A.C. 191 |
Immunity from negligence liability where public interest outweighs private claims (barristers). |
Analogy used to justify a similar immunity for police investigative functions. |
Court's Reasoning and Analysis
Judge [Keith], delivering the principal speech, assumed the pleaded facts to be true for strike-out purposes but held that they did not establish a duty of care.
- Foreseeability versus Proximity: Although harm to young women was foreseeable if Individual A remained at large, the Decedent was one of a vast and indeterminate class. No special or distinctive risk created sufficient proximity.
- Comparison with Dorset Yacht: Key features that led to liability there—control of wrongdoers and a limited, identifiable class of potential victims—were absent. Individual A was never in police custody, and the potential victim class was effectively the female public at large.
- Public-policy considerations: Even if proximity existed, imposing liability would be contrary to the public interest. It could lead to:
- Defensive policing.
- Floods of litigation questioning tactical decisions.
- Diversion of resources from crime prevention to litigation defence.
- Analogy with advocate immunity: As barristers are immune for in-court conduct to protect the administration of justice, so police should be immune for core investigative decisions to protect effective law enforcement.
- Conclusion on strike-out: Because no duty of care could arise on legal or policy grounds, the statement of claim disclosed no reasonable cause of action and was properly struck out.
Holding and Implications
APPEAL DISMISSED. The House of Lords affirmed the Court of Appeal order striking out the claim and held that members of a police force do not owe a private-law duty of care to individual members of the public in respect of the investigation and suppression of crime.
Implications: The decision confirms a broad immunity for police investigative functions, limiting negligence claims to direct operational acts (e.g., physical harm caused by officers) rather than allegations of inadequate investigation. No new precedent was set in favour of private-law liability; instead, the ruling reinforces policy-based limits on such claims.
Click here to read the full judgment