Robinson v West Yorkshire Police [2018] UKSC 4

An elderly woman was injured when police officers, arresting a suspect, foreseeably collided with her. The Supreme Court found the police liable in negligence. It ruled that where police create a danger of foreseeable harm, an ordinary duty of care arises without applying the Caparo test.

Facts

Mrs Robinson, a 76-year-old woman, was walking along a busy street in Huddersfield. A group of police officers were attempting to arrest a suspected drug dealer, Mr Williams. The officers decided to arrest him on the street. As they moved to make the arrest, Mr Williams resisted. In the ensuing struggle, two officers and Mr Williams fell to the ground, colliding with Mrs Robinson, who was a bystander. She was knocked over and sustained injuries. She brought a claim in negligence against the police. The trial judge found that the officers had been negligent in how they carried out the arrest but dismissed the claim, applying the test from Caparo Industries plc v Dickman [1990] 2 AC 605 and concluding that it was not fair, just and reasonable to impose a duty of care on the police in such circumstances. The Court of Appeal upheld this decision, finding that the police were immune from negligence claims in respect of their operational duties.

Issues

The primary legal issue before the Supreme Court was whether the police owe a duty of care to members of the public when carrying out their operational duties, such as effecting an arrest. A crucial sub-issue was whether the Caparo test was the correct legal framework for determining the existence of a duty of care in this context, or whether established principles of negligence law should apply.

Judgment

The Supreme Court, in a majority judgment led by Lord Reed, allowed the appeal, finding the police liable in negligence. The court provided a significant clarification on the law of duty of care.

The Role of the Caparo Test

Lord Reed’s central point was that the Court of Appeal had misunderstood the role of the Caparo test. He stated that it is not a universal test to be applied in every negligence case. Instead, the correct approach is to look to established categories and principles of negligence first. The Caparo test should only be used in novel situations where the law has not yet established whether a duty of care exists.

The proposition that there is a Caparo test which applies to all claims in the modern law of negligence, and that in consequence the court will only impose a duty of care where it considers it fair, just and reasonable to do so on the particular facts, is a mistake.

Application of Established Principles

The court held that this case did not present a novel situation. It fell within an established area of negligence law: liability for a positive act that causes foreseeable physical harm. The police, in deciding to arrest Mr Williams, initiated a positive action. It was reasonably foreseeable that in the course of such an arrest on a busy street, a bystander might be injured if the arrest was not managed carefully. Therefore, an ordinary duty of care was owed to prevent such foreseeable harm. Distinguishing this case from those concerning omissions (like Hill v Chief Constable of West Yorkshire), Lord Reed clarified that the police are generally subject to the same principles of negligence as private individuals when their own positive actions create a risk of injury.

The police are however subject to a duty of care, owed to an individual member of the public, where the police themselves create a danger of a kind which the law of negligence ordinarily requires a person to guard against… and which the person could not have been expected to be exposed to, but for the action of the police.

On the facts, the trial judge had found that the officers foresaw the risk of Williams resisting arrest and that the risk of injury to passers-by was foreseeable. In proceeding with the arrest in a busy area, they exposed Mrs Robinson to that foreseeable risk. This was sufficient to establish a duty of care and a breach of that duty.

Implications

The judgment is critically important for its clarification of the law on negligence and duty of care. It firmly confines the Caparo test to novel cases, re-establishing the primacy of precedent and established legal principles. It confirms that the police do not enjoy a general immunity from negligence claims arising from their operational duties. The key distinction is between positive acts by the police that create a risk of harm (where a duty is likely) and omissions, such as failing to protect individuals from harm caused by a third party (where imposing a duty is rare and requires special circumstances).

Verdict: The appeal was allowed. The Supreme Court held that the police owed a duty of care to the appellant and were liable in negligence for her injuries, restoring the trial judge’s findings on the facts but reversing the legal conclusion on the duty of care.

Source: Robinson v West Yorkshire Police [2018] UKSC 4