## Facts

- The Swinneys provided confidential information to Northumbria Police regarding a suspect involved in a fatal hit-and-run incident.
- This information was of a sensitive nature and its disclosure posed significant risk to the informants.
- The confidential file containing the Swinneys' details was left in a police car, which was subsequently stolen.
- Associates of the suspect accessed the stolen file, exposing the Swinneys’ identity.
- As a result, Mrs. Swinney suffered psychiatric harm linked to threats and fear for safety following the breach of confidentiality.

## Issues

1. Whether the police owed a duty of care to the Swinneys, as informants, to protect them from harm arising from their cooperation.
2. Whether the breach of confidentiality and inadequate security measures by police constituted a breach of that duty.
3. What standard of care is required of the police in handling informant information.
4. How public policy and the need for effective crime prevention affect the recognition of a duty of care to informants.

## Decision

- The Court of Appeal found that the police owed the Swinneys a duty of care as there was sufficient proximity and foreseeability of harm.
- The court held that the police had breached this duty by failing to take reasonable steps to protect the Swinneys' identity and sensitive information.
- Causation was established: the breach resulted in psychiatric harm to Mrs. Swinney.
- The court recognised public policy concerns but determined that police should not be absolutely immune from liability when reasonable precautions to protect informants are not taken.
- The duty imposed is not absolute; it requires the police to act with reasonable care under the circumstances.

## Legal Principles

- Police may owe a duty of care to informants when a proximate relationship and foreseeable risk of harm exist.
- Reasonable precautions must be taken to safeguard the confidentiality of informants’ identities and information.
- Liability for breach of duty depends on the standard of care appropriate to the circumstances, rather than a strict guarantee of safety.
- Public interest in law enforcement must be balanced with the need to protect individuals who assist police.
- The case affirms that duty of care in negligence can extend to police in the context of informant protection.

## Conclusion

Swinney v Chief Constable of Northumbria Police established that police owe a duty of care to informants where there is proximity and foreseeable harm, requiring reasonable measures to ensure their safety; the breach of this duty can result in liability, with public policy carefully weighed but not overriding the need for informant protection.


Swinney v Chief Constable of Northumbria Police [1997] QB 464