## Facts

- Peter Sutcliffe, known as the "Yorkshire Ripper," committed multiple murders.
- The claimant, mother of one of the victims, alleged that police negligence in investigating the crimes led to a failure to apprehend Sutcliffe sooner.
- She sought damages against the Chief Constable of West Yorkshire, claiming the police owed a duty of care to protect her daughter and other potential victims from foreseeable harm.
- The claim specifically concerned the police's alleged failure to identify and arrest Sutcliffe before her daughter’s murder.
- The case centered on whether the police owed an actionable duty of care in negligence to individual members of the public relating to the investigation and prevention of crime.

## Issues

1. Whether the police owed a duty of care in negligence to individual members of the public to protect them against the criminal acts of unknown third parties.
2. Whether reasonable foreseeability of harm from criminals was sufficient to establish a duty of care by the police in their investigative functions.
3. Whether public policy considerations required limitation or exclusion of police liability in negligence for investigative decisions.

## Decision

- The House of Lords held that the police do not owe a general duty of care in negligence to members of the public for failing to apprehend unknown criminals.
- The relationship between police and the public was found not to be sufficiently proximate to create such a duty of care.
- Mere foreseeability of harm was not enough; no additional factors established the necessary proximity between victim and police.
- Public policy considerations strongly militated against imposing such a duty, as it would compel a diversion of police resources and encourage defensive policing.
- The court considered the operational effectiveness of the police and the proper allocation of public resources to outweigh arguments for individual liability in these circumstances.

## Legal Principles

- Duty of care in negligence requires both reasonable foreseeability of harm and a sufficiently proximate relationship between claimant and defendant.
- The imposition of such a duty on public authorities, including the police, must be just, fair, and reasonable, with careful regard to public policy.
- The police act for the benefit of the public at large and do not owe a specific actionable duty of care to any one person in the context of investigation and suppression of crime.
- Public policy factors, such as risk of defensive policing and resource allocation, play a central role in restricting liability for public authorities.
- The “Hill principle” restricts police liability for omissions in failing to apprehend criminals, though positive acts causing harm may be distinguished.
- Subsequent cases, including Brooks v Commissioner of Police for the Metropolis [2005] 1 WLR 1495, confirm the ongoing relevance of the Hill rule, subject to consideration of Human Rights Act 1998 and European Convention on Human Rights implications.
- The European Court of Human Rights in Osman v UK (1998) held that blanket exclusion of police liability could violate Article 6.1, requiring a balance between policy interests and the right of access to court.

## Conclusion

Hill v Chief Constable of West Yorkshire established that, barring special circumstances, police owe no actionable duty of care in negligence for failing to prevent harm by third parties, with the decision grounded in the absence of proximity and overriding public policy concerns—a position that, while enduring, is subject to human rights scrutiny to ensure access to justice is not improperly restricted.

Hill v Chief Constable of West Yorkshire [1988] 2 WLR 1049 (HL)