Good morning! Let's learn.

Van Colle v Chief Constable of Hertfordshire Police [2008] U...

ResourcesVan Colle v Chief Constable of Hertfordshire Police [2008] U...

Facts

  • Giles Van Colle was due to give evidence against Daniel Brougham regarding theft from Van Colle's shop.
  • Brougham made threatening phone calls to Van Colle, who reported these threats to the police.
  • The police officer handling the case did not take adequate steps to investigate the threats.
  • Van Colle was subsequently murdered by Brougham shortly before the trial.
  • Van Colle’s parents claimed the police failed in their duty to protect him.

Issues

  1. Whether Article 2 ECHR imposed a positive operational duty on the police to protect Van Colle’s life in the circumstances.
  2. Whether the police owed a common law duty of care to Van Colle to protect him from third-party criminal acts.
  3. Whether the threats reported amounted to a “real and immediate risk” to life triggering the Article 2 duty.
  4. Whether the established principle of police immunity from negligence applied to these facts.

Decision

  • The House of Lords held that the threshold for the police’s positive duty under Article 2 ECHR is high and was not reached in this case.
  • It was determined that the police did not know, and ought not to have known, of a real and immediate risk to Van Colle’s life from Brougham.
  • The claimants' negligence claim against the police failed; no common law duty of care was owed in these circumstances.
  • The principle of police immunity from negligence in the context of crime investigation and prevention was reiterated.
  • Article 2 ECHR imposes a positive obligation to protect life only where authorities knew or ought to have known of a real and immediate risk to a specific individual from third-party criminal acts.
  • The “real and immediate risk” test requires that the risk be more than hypothetical or speculative and must be imminent.
  • The Osman test, established in Osman v United Kingdom (1998) 29 EHRR 245, sets a stringent requirement for foreseeability before the positive duty to protect arises.
  • Police do not generally owe a common law duty of care for their investigation and prevention of crime, reflecting longstanding policy immunity.

Conclusion

The House of Lords affirmed that the threshold for police liability under Article 2 ECHR is high, requiring clear foreseeability of a real and immediate risk to life, and confirmed that police retain immunity from negligence claims relating to investigative and preventative actions.

Assistant

Responses can be incorrect. Please double check.

We use cookies to ensure you get the best experience on our website. For more information please see our Privacy Policy.