## 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.


Osman v Ferguson [1993] 4 All ER 344