The Shooting of PC Rathband: Who was responsible?

Written by: George Thomas
Published: 1 March 2016

The story of PC David Rathband, shot and blinded by Raoul Moat on 4th July 2010, and his subsequent suicide in February 2012, is one of the most traumatic for the police service in recent years. Prior to his death he had commenced legal proceedings against the Chief Constable of Northumbria Constabulary arising out of the shooting. The claim was carried on after his death by his brother and sister, on behalf of his dependants and estate.

Two weeks ago the High Court gave its judgment in Rathband v Chief Constable of Northumbria [2016] EWHC 181 (QB). It dismissed the claim in negligence brought against the Chief Constable of Northumbria Police. In doing so the Court had to determine where the balance lay between the competing principles that (1) a Chief Constable owes a duty of care to serving officers, and (2) the immunity from suit in negligence that a Chief Constable generally enjoys in relation to operational decisions.

Police duty of care to witnesses

Written by: Elliot Gold
Published: 3 August 2015

The taking of witness statements by the police and the making of applications for witness summons’ falls within the core immunity in Hill;

Such actions do not demonstrate a voluntary assumption by the police of a particular duty of care to the maker of the statement;

Article 8 provides no greater protection than article 2 and it will be difficult for a Claimant to succeed only on the former.

In Whose Interest are You Acting?

Written by: George Thomas
Published: 13 July 2015

The impact of the High Court decision in James-Bowen v The Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis on the relationship between a Chief Officer and those accused of wrongdoing in civil proceedings.

The High Court confirmed that, where a Chief Officer is defending civil proceedings brought solely against him/her, there is no duty owed to individual officers whose conduct is the subject matter of the claim.

While this decision is perhaps unsurprising, the action highlights the uncomfortable position a constabulary will often find itself in where it is uncertain about the truth of an allegation made against an officer.

Domestic Murder: Are the Police Liable?

Written by: James Berry
Published: 13 April 2015

The majority of the Supreme Court have once again concluded that the police owe no duty of care in negligence to members of the public who suffer harm at the hands of criminals.

However, the case of Michael v Chief Constable of South Wales [2015] UKSC 2 has confirmed that, although there may be no claim in negligence, the police may still be liable for a breach of Article 2 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR).

Such claims can be brought in the domestic courts under the Human Rights Act (HRA) 1998.

The police may be held liable to victims (or their families) for clear failures to prevent a potentially fatal incident of domestic violence of which they have received specific warning.

Leaving under a cloud: a duty of candour for departing officers?

Written by: Susanna Rickard
Published: 26 January 2015

A recent High Court case has recognised the heightened ethical and public law duty on Chief Officers when a Force provides references to outside bodies regarding officers who are leaving the police. The duty is particularly pertinent to situations where officers leave under the cloud of potential or pending disciplinary proceedings.

Following the death of Ian Tomlinson, the spotlight has been on internal police vetting procedures and how to ensure that information about an officer’s misconduct history is shared at the relevant points, such as when an officer seeks to transfer or re-join a force. The decision in AB v A Chief Constable [2014] EWHC 1965 (QB) recognises a need to be just as alert, and where necessary to share information about, officers who are leaving the police force altogether.