Osman v Ferguson [1993] 4 All ER 344

Facts

  • A schoolteacher, P, developed an obsession with a 15-year-old pupil, leading to harassment, vandalism, and explicit threats reported to the police.
  • Despite notification to the police, including warnings from P about his potential criminal actions, officers did not apprehend or charge P, nor did they search his property.
  • P subsequently rammed a car containing the pupil and later shot and wounded the pupil, also killing the pupil’s father.
  • The injured pupil and his mother brought a negligence claim against the Metropolitan Police Commissioner, arguing failure to intervene despite awareness of escalating risk.
  • At first instance, the lower court found in favour of the claimants; however, the Metropolitan Police Commissioner appealed the decision to the Court of Appeal.

Issues

  1. Whether the police owed a duty of care to the claimants due to the specific and heightened risk posed by P.
  2. Whether proximity or a special relationship existed between the officers and the claimants to establish a duty of care.
  3. Whether public policy considerations precluded imposing liability on the police for failures in investigatory and preventive action.

Decision

  • The Court of Appeal held that, even where a special relationship or increased risk exists, this does not automatically create a duty of care between police and private individuals.
  • The court found that imposing such a duty could have adverse effects, including diverting police resources and leading to defensive policing, contrary to public policy objectives.
  • The general duty of the police to suppress crime did not impose automatic civil liability for harm caused by unapprehended criminals.
  • The negligence claim was dismissed, with the decision favouring the Metropolitan Police Commissioner.

Legal Principles

  • The existence of proximity or a special relationship may create an arguable case for a duty of care but is not by itself determinative where public policy considerations are engaged.
  • Public bodies, such as the police, are subject to public policy limitations on liability in negligence for failures in operational duties.
  • The “floodgates” argument remains a key reason for restricting liability, as opening the courts to numerous claims could threaten public resources and the effectiveness of core services.
  • Precedent from Hill v Chief Constable of West Yorkshire [1988] 2 WLR 1049 influenced the limitation of police liability in negligence claims arising from failures to apprehend criminals.

Conclusion

The Court of Appeal in Osman v Ferguson reinforced that, despite proximity or special risk, public policy concerns take precedence, and police cannot generally be held liable in negligence for operational failings in investigations unless a duty of care clearly arises beyond the general public duty.

The answers, solutions, explanations, and written content provided on this page represent PastPaperHero's interpretation of academic material and potential responses to given questions. These are not guaranteed to be the only correct or definitive answers or explanations. Alternative valid responses, interpretations, or approaches may exist. If you believe any content is incorrect, outdated, or could be improved, please get in touch with us and we will review and make necessary amendments if we deem it appropriate. As per our terms and conditions, PastPaperHero shall not be held liable or responsible for any consequences arising. This includes, but is not limited to, incorrect answers in assignments, exams, or any form of testing administered by educational institutions or examination boards, as well as any misunderstandings or misapplications of concepts explained in our written content. Users are responsible for verifying that the methods, procedures, and explanations presented align with those taught in their respective educational settings and with current academic standards. While we strive to provide high-quality, accurate, and up-to-date content, PastPaperHero does not guarantee the completeness or accuracy of our written explanations, nor any specific outcomes in academic understanding or testing, whether formal or informal.
No resources available.

Job & Test Prep on a Budget

Compare PastPaperHero's subscription offering to the wider market

PastPaperHero
Monthly Plan
$10
Assessment Day
One-time Fee
$20-39
Job Test Prep
One-time Fee
$90-350

Note the above prices are approximate and based on prices listed on the respective websites as of May 2025. Prices may vary based on location, currency exchange rates, and other factors.

Get unlimited access to thousands of practice questions, flashcards, and detailed explanations. Save over 90% compared to one-time courses while maintaining the flexibility to learn at your own pace.

All-in-one Learning Platform

Everything you need to master your assessments and job tests in one place

  • Comprehensive Content

    Access thousands of fully explained questions and cases across multiple subjects

  • Visual Learning

    Understand complex concepts with intuitive diagrams and flowcharts

  • Focused Practice

    Prepare for assessments with targeted practice materials and expert guidance

  • Personalized Learning

    Track your progress and focus on areas where you need improvement

  • Affordable Access

    Get quality educational resources at a fraction of traditional costs

Tell Us What You Think

Help us improve our resources by sharing your experience

Pleased to share that I have successfully passed the SQE1 exam on 1st attempt. With SQE2 exempted, I’m now one step closer to getting enrolled as a Solicitor of England and Wales! Would like to thank my seniors, colleagues, mentors and friends for all the support during this grueling journey. This is one of the most difficult bar exams in the world to undertake, especially alongside a full time job! So happy to help out any aspirant who may be reading this message! I had prepared from the University of Law SQE Manuals and the AI powered MCQ bank from PastPaperHero.

Saptarshi Chatterjee

Saptarshi Chatterjee

Senior Associate at Trilegal