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

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.

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