Public Authority Liability Flashcards
Stovin v Wise [1996]
Highway Authority - discretionary power under statute to remove obstructions etc.
Not done by date - car crash.
NO LIABILITY - STATUTORY POWERS DID NOT CONFER A COMMON LAW DUTY OF CARE.
Policy reasoning: DoC would be detrimental to budgetary decisions of the public authority.
X (a minor) & Others v Bedfordshire CC & Others [1995]
Shows significance of policy reasoning when assessing liability of public authorities.
Conjoined appeals
- claims by children for council’s failure to protect their welfare despite being aware of parental abuse (by statute)
- another - mother and child claimed when mother social worker negligently investigated facts and removed child from home - incorrect.
- 3 other claims - education bodies failing to comply with statutory education duties
COURTS APPROACH:
- If involves very high-policy discussion - court can’t intervene
- Has D acted outside the ambit of its statutorily-conferred discretion?
- Caparo test
___
POLICY REASONS APPLIED:
(1) Common law DoC would cut across statutory system set up for protection of children at risk.
(2) Task of dealing with children at risk ‘extremely difficult’ - latitude.
(3) DoC - public authorities - defensive/cautious approach to sensitive area - undesirable
(4) Hopeless litigation claims
(5) Alternative methods - statutory complain schemes, judicial review, govt. ombudsman.
Jain v Trent Strategic Authority [2009]
Common law DoC would hinder/conflict with statutory obligations - undermine the interests of the vulnerable that the statutory scheme sort to protect.
Hill v Chief Constable of West Yorkshire Police [1988]
Daughter - last victim of Peter Sutcliffe - claimed against police for negligence in failing to apprehend him before he took another victim.
Dismissed.
POLICY:
Police owe no DoC to public at large to apprehend unknown criminals - unless failure creates an exceptional risk and there is sufficient proximity between police officers and potential victims.
POLICE MUST BE IMMUNE FROM ALLEGATIONS OF NEGLIGENCE WHEN INVESTIGATING/SUPPRESSING CRIME.
OSMAN v UK [1999] (ECtHR)
Insane teacher - obsessed with Osman - many incidents reported to police - killed O’s father and seriously injured O - manslaughter.
Claimed against police for their negligent investigation before killing happened.
___
C of A rejected - applied Hill.
___
ECtHR
- Claimed under Art. 2, Art. 8 and even Art. 6 - contended unfair trial due to treating police with immunity.
HELD:
No breach of Arts. 2 or 8 - whilst there had been incidents - didn’t indicate that O and father’s lives were in immediate danger.
BUT - WAS A BREACH OF ART. 6 - Held that a case against the police should be determined on its merits when deserving.
Z v United Kingdom [2001]
Children - abused by parents - reported to police and social services on several occasions - took 5 years to act.
___
H of L rejected claim - applied X (a minor) v Bedfordshire CC
___
ECtHR
ALLOWED - held;
Breach of Art. 3 (degrading treatment - had clearly been violated.
Breach of Art. 6 ( as in Osman v UK)
Breach of Art. 13 - failure to be afforded remedy in the courts.
JD v East Berkshire Community Health Trust [2005]
Parents - wrongly accused of abusing children by public authority - caused them psychiatric harm.
Failed - policy reasoning
Only duty owed to parent when investigating potential child abuse is that they are carried out in good faith - no duty owed in respect of carelessness.
Cannot owe a duty both to children and parents - conflict.
Not an interference with family life.
Importance of protecting vulnerable children given greater precedence than protection parents’ right to privacy - nature of vulnerable children so that intrusive investigations are inevitable.
Merthyr Tydfil CBC v C
Said - JD v East Berkshire Community Health Trust does not conclusively mean that where there is DoC to a child, there can never be one owed to a parent as well.
Brooks v Commissioner of Police for the Metropolis [2005]
Victim of racist gang attack - police disgracefully thought that surviving victim had murdered friend - ignored him when he reported where assailants had run to - negligence and racism prevented killers from being caught.
PTSD.
H of L REJECTED - ALLOWED POLICE APPEAL
APPLIED HILL - core principal in Hill remained unchallenged
Van Colle and another v Chief Constable of Hertfordshire Police [2008]
Smith v Chief Constable of Sussex [2008]
Van Colle:
Witness intimidating - claimant’s son shot dead
Action brought for failure to protect him + Art. 2
C of A - accepted DoC - as a witness - more easy to establish DoC to protect his life as state had exposed him to greater risk.
___
Smith:
Breakup - claimant received persistent threatening messages + threats to kill - reported this to police + his history of violence - officers declined to record, took no statement, no crime form etc. - attacked and severely injured. - Warnings included that he was getting closer and closer, claimant had to go on the run.
C of A allowed.
____
H of L ALLOWED BOTH APPEALS: \_\_\_\_ Van Colle: Danger not immediate enough for breach of Art. 2 - on trial for petty offences and nothing to indicate that he was prone to violence. - Shouldn't apply hindsight. No lower test of DoC for witnesses
Smith:
Again - Hill policy reasons.
Would lead to police defensive practice
McIvor
Courts using a simple defensive practice argument to deny DoC
Arguable that threat of liability would produce opposite effect - motivate individuals to do their jobs better.
D of C should be more easily imposed - liability can be rejected at breach stage - e.g. social benefit - would allow for more coherent decisions.
“Immunity is the starting point for police negligence liability”
Clear that in Smith, unlike in Hill, there was a clear, identifiable 3rd party coming increasingly proximate to the claimant.
