## 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.

## Legal Principles

- 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.


Van Colle v Chief Constable of Hertfordshire Police [2008] UKHL 50