Magill v Chief Constable of the Police Service of Northern Ireland

Factual and Procedural Background

The Plaintiff participated lawfully in a parade on or about 12 July 2013 in a specified area of Belfast when he was assaulted and injured. During the parade, the Plaintiff’s group was confined and stationary due to the parade being halted by police conduct. Protestors attacked the Plaintiff’s group by throwing missiles over a peace wall-type cordon. Police officers were present, aware of the attack, but took no steps to prevent it. The Plaintiff was struck approximately ten minutes after the attack began.

The Plaintiff initiated a negligence claim seeking damages for injury caused by this assault. The Defendant, the Chief Constable of the Police Service of Northern Ireland, applied under Order 18 rule 12 of the Rules of the Court of Judicature (NI) 1980 to dismiss the claim on the basis that it disclosed no reasonable cause of action. The Master initially acceded to this application, but this was reversed by McAlinden J on 30 September 2021. The Defendant appealed this reversal to the Court of Appeal.

During the appeal, the Court granted leave to appeal, permitted amendments to the Notice of Appeal and the Statement of Claim, the latter to incorporate certain observations made by the Court. The amended Statement of Claim included allegations that police actions caused the parade to halt and remain stationary, thereby contributing to the attack and injury sustained by the Plaintiff.

Legal Issues Presented

1. Whether the Plaintiff’s amended Statement of Claim disclosed a reasonable cause of action in negligence against the police for their acts and omissions during the parade attack.
2. Whether the police owed a duty of care to the Plaintiff in the circumstances, considering established principles limiting police liability for omissions and acts of third parties.
3. Whether the Plaintiff’s case could succeed on the basis of the police assuming responsibility or creating a danger through positive conduct.

Arguments of the Parties

Appellant's Arguments

• The Defendant submitted that the amended Statement of Claim still failed to disclose a reasonable cause of action as the police owed no duty of care to prevent harm caused by third parties or to confer a benefit by protecting individuals.
• The Defendant relied on established public policy principles and case law emphasizing the limited circumstances in which police owe a duty of care, arguing that the Plaintiff’s allegations did not meet these thresholds.
• They emphasized the importance of coherence, predictability, and certainty in the law, relying on precedents such as Robinson and Tindall to argue the absence of a duty in this case.

Respondent's Arguments

• The Plaintiff contended that the amended Statement of Claim included allegations of positive conduct by police officers that caused the parade to halt and remain stationary, thereby creating or materially contributing to the danger that led to the injury.
• The Plaintiff argued that these positive acts distinguished the case from previous decisions where liability was denied based on omissions alone.
• The Plaintiff further submitted that the case could succeed on the basis of assumption of responsibility by the police, a recognized exception to the general non-liability for omissions.

Table of Precedents Cited

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The Court began by emphasizing that strike out applications require the claim to be plainly unarguable and that the Plaintiff’s case must be taken at its highest and all pleaded facts assumed true. The Court noted that the original Statement of Claim, based solely on omissions by police, would not have survived the strike out application. However, the amended Statement of Claim introduced allegations of positive police conduct causing the parade to halt and remain stationary, which materially contributed to the Plaintiff’s injury.

The Court reviewed extensive jurisprudence establishing that police generally owe no duty of care to prevent harm caused by third parties or to confer benefits through their public functions, grounded in public policy considerations. Leading authorities such as Hill, Brooks, and Van Colle confirm this limitation, with exceptions recognized where police create a danger by positive acts or assume responsibility for another’s care.

The Court found that the Plaintiff’s amended case narrowly fits within these exceptions as articulated in Robinson. The police allegedly caused the parade to halt and remain stationary, thereby creating or materially increasing the risk of harm. This positive conduct distinguishes the case from pure omissions and engages the possibility of a duty of care.

Additionally, the Court considered the doctrine of assumption of responsibility, which is fact-sensitive and open-textured, and which the Plaintiff argued might apply. While the Court did not definitively find assumption of responsibility, it acknowledged that the amended claim raises a question fit for trial rather than strike out.

The Court acknowledged that this decision is interlocutory and does not forecast the ultimate outcome, which will depend on evidence and trial processes. It noted the importance of fact sensitivity, referencing Costello where liability hinged on a police officer’s admission of professional duty.

Holding and Implications

The Court AFFIRMED the order of McAlinden J and DISMISSED the Chief Constable’s appeal against the refusal to strike out the Plaintiff’s amended Statement of Claim.

The direct effect is that the Plaintiff’s negligence claim, as amended, may proceed to trial. The Court emphasized that this interlocutory decision does not indicate the Plaintiff’s ultimate success. No new precedent was established; rather, the decision applies existing principles to the particular facts alleged, underscoring the importance of positive police conduct and assumption of responsibility in police negligence claims.

The Court ordered that costs be awarded to the Plaintiff in respect of all judicial levels at which the Defendant’s strike out application was considered.