Introduction
The judgment in Michael v Chief Constable of South Wales Police [2015] UKSC 2 addresses the complexities of negligence claims against public authorities, specifically concerning the duty of care owed by the police. At its core, the concept of negligence requires establishing a duty of care, breach of that duty, and resultant harm to the claimant. The technical principles of negligence law typically require an affirmative act that causes harm; omission, or failure to act, generally does not create liability unless specific exceptions exist. The key requirements for establishing negligence involve proving that the defendant owed a duty to the claimant, the defendant breached that duty, and the breach directly caused damage or harm to the claimant. These requirements are crucial when assessing liability for public bodies, particularly the police, whose duties often involve responding to emergencies where inaction can have serious consequences.
The Facts of the Case
The factual background of Michael v Chief Constable of South Wales Police is that the claimant’s ex-partner visited her residence, assaulted her present partner, and stated he would return to assault her. The claimant contacted the police, and the initial assessment of the call indicated a need for immediate response. However, due to an accidental error, the call was downgraded, causing a significant delay in the police response time. This delay resulted in the death of the claimant. The critical question before the court was whether, under these specific circumstances, the police owed a duty of care to the deceased, such that their negligent failure to respond promptly constituted a breach leading to liability. This case, therefore, provides a specific example in which the court examined liability for negligence, specifically in the context of police response to urgent requests for assistance.
The Issue of Duty of Care
A central issue in Michael v Chief Constable of South Wales Police was whether a duty of care existed, requiring the police to act to protect the deceased. The Supreme Court referenced the precedent set by Caparo Industries plc v Dickman [1990] 2 AC 605, emphasizing that there is no single test to find a duty of care. Instead, an incremental approach must be adopted, which avoids a rigid test application. Lord Toulson’s opinion specifically refuted the concept of a single test suitable to all cases concerning duty of care, stating that a more nuanced method should be applied. This approach requires a careful consideration of the specific relationship between the defendant and the claimant, the foreseeability of harm, and the fairness of imposing a duty in light of public policy. It requires a case-by-case assessment instead of strict formulaic application.
Liability of Public Authorities
The court examined the general principles concerning the liability of public bodies, focusing on the "omissions rule," which usually does not impose a duty to act affirmatively. Generally, the common law does not impose liability for harm caused by a third party. The court noted the exception to this rule which typically apply to private individuals, do also apply to public authorities. These exceptions include: when the defendant creates the danger; the defendant has a level of control over the third party; and where the defendant assumes responsibility. In Michael v Chief Constable of South Wales Police, the court considered whether any of these exceptions apply to the actions of the police. The court stressed that the existence of a public duty or service such as policing does not automatically translate into a private law duty to compensate individual victims. The court stated that the establishment of a public protection system should not automatically result in individual victims being additionally compensated through litigation. The case highlighted that determining negligence against public authorities requires careful consideration of whether there is an exception to the rule of omissions.
Liability of the Police and Public Policy
The court considered whether a private law duty of care should be imposed on the police in this specific circumstance, the court determined it would be inappropriate. The Supreme Court’s opinion emphasized the importance of treating public authorities in a manner consistent with normal common law principles. Lord Toulson argued against the existence of a special immunity for the police, asking rather whether an exception should be created to the application of standard principles. The preservation of the peace by the police is not considered the type of close and specific relationship required for establishing a private law duty of care. The judgment also addressed public policy considerations, criticizing prior cases for placing too much weight on such concerns when considering negligence. Lord Toulson stated that speculation about operational consequences if the law on negligence changed was unproductive. The court suggested a possible outcome of increased investigations and a decrease in domestic violence. The court also suggested the alternative possibility that police might reallocate resources in fear of being sued, and therefore potentially lead to a negative impact on the overall effectiveness of the police. They did not believe this to be a compelling factor against the imposition of duty of care. It should be noted however, that the court did recognize the clear negative financial impact on police forces stemming from litigation costs and compensation payments.
Analysis of the Current Case and Dissenting Opinion
In the specific case of Michael v Chief Constable of South Wales Police, the court found no assumption of responsibility. The call handler provided an assurance of passing on the call to South Wales Police but did not guarantee a rapid response time. This was contrasted to a prior case, Kent v Griffiths [2001] QB 36, where the ambulance call handler made explicit assurances of arrival, thereby establishing an assumption of responsibility. Lord Kerr's dissenting opinion argued that the omissions rule is not appropriate for public authorities, specifically the police, as the purpose of their duty is to prevent harm. This is in stark contrast to private individuals whose actions are aimed at benefitting themselves. Lord Kerr considered the police had a direct causative role in the death and that there was sufficient proximity between the deceased and the police to establish a duty of care, arguing the police should not be exempt from liability when they fail to provide the necessary protection of their public duties.
Conclusion
The judgment in Michael v Chief Constable of South Wales Police clarifies critical aspects of negligence law as applied to public authorities, and the police force in particular. The decision reinforces the principle that public bodies are subject to general negligence principles, though the rule against liability for omissions presents a considerable legal hurdle for claimants. The case demonstrates the judiciary’s commitment to an incremental approach to determining duties of care, as per the decision in Caparo Industries plc v Dickman which avoids rigid formulaic application. The case highlights exceptions to the general omission rule such as assuming responsibility, creating danger, and exercising control over the third party, yet the court stressed that a public duty does not necessarily translate into an individual duty of care. The case emphasizes that unless the public authority comes within one of the specific exceptions, omissions will not normally give rise to liability. The dissenting opinion provides a contrasting position, suggesting that public authorities, particularly the police, should be held to a higher standard concerning protecting individuals from harm. The case demonstrates that, though the police play an important public role, it does not constitute a special relationship which will impose a private duty of care. This ruling thus provides valuable guidance for cases of negligence against public authorities which focus on alleged failings to prevent harm.
