Michael v Chief Constable of South Wales Police [2015] UKSC 2

Joanna Michael made a 999 call reporting threats from her ex-partner. Due to communication failures between two police forces, officers arrived too late and she was murdered. The Supreme Court held police owed no common law duty of care to protect individuals from third-party violence absent an assumption of responsibility, but allowed the human rights claim to proceed to trial.

Facts

In the early hours of 5 August 2009, Joanna Michael called 999 to report that her ex-boyfriend had assaulted her and threatened to return and harm her. The call was received by Gwent Police and passed to South Wales Police. The call handler did not relay the threat to kill, and the call was downgraded from requiring immediate response to a 60-minute response time. When Ms Michael called again at 2.43 am screaming, police arrived to find she had been brutally stabbed to death. Her parents and children brought claims against both police forces for negligence at common law and under the Human Rights Act 1998 for breach of article 2.

Police Response Failures

The Independent Police Complaints Commission found serious criticisms of both police forces for individual and organisational failures. Data held by South Wales Police recorded a history of domestic abuse incidents involving Ms Michael and her attacker.

Issues

1. Whether the police owed a duty of care in negligence to Ms Michael when they received her 999 call reporting an imminent threat to her life.

2. Whether the police should be held to have assumed responsibility to take reasonable care for Ms Michael’s safety.

3. Whether there was an arguable breach of article 2 of the European Convention on Human Rights.

Judgment

Majority Decision

The majority (Lord Toulson, Lord Neuberger, Lord Mance, Lord Reed and Lord Hodge) dismissed the appeal on the negligence claim. Lord Toulson delivered the leading judgment, holding that English law does not generally impose liability on a defendant for injury caused by a third party’s conduct. The police’s duty for preservation of the peace is owed to the public at large and does not give rise to private law duties of care to individual members of the public.

Lord Toulson explained that the existing exceptions to the omissions principle did not apply. The murderer was not under police control (unlike in Dorset Yacht), and the call handler’s words did not constitute an assumption of responsibility under the Hedley Byrne principle. The call handler gave no promise about response times and did not advise Ms Michael to remain in her house.

On policy considerations, Lord Toulson stated that the court had no way of judging the likely operational consequences of changing the law, and that it would be contrary to public interest for police priorities to be affected by the risk of civil claims. He noted that if public compensation for crime victims beyond the criminal injuries scheme was thought necessary, this was properly a matter for Parliament.

Dissenting Judgments

Lord Kerr and Lady Hale would have allowed the appeal. Lord Kerr proposed that proximity should be established where: (i) there is closeness of association created by information communicated to the defendant; (ii) the information conveys that serious harm is likely without urgent action; (iii) the defendant can reasonably be expected to provide protection; and (iv) they can do so without unnecessary danger to themselves.

Lady Hale drew parallels with D v East Berkshire NHS Trust, where the advent of human rights claims led to recognition of a common law duty of care to children. She noted that the police owe a positive duty in public law to protect members of the public from harm, and that where human rights claims are available, the policy reasons against negligence claims have largely ceased to apply.

Article 2 Claim

The court unanimously dismissed the cross-appeal on the article 2 claim. The question whether the call handler ought to have understood the threat to kill was properly a matter for trial.

Implications

This case confirms the core principle from Hill v Chief Constable of West Yorkshire that police do not owe a duty of care in negligence to individual members of the public for failures in crime prevention or investigation. The decision maintains the distinction between public law duties owed to the community generally and private law duties actionable by individuals.

However, the case demonstrates that claims under the Human Rights Act for breach of articles 2 or 3 remain available where police fail to protect individuals from known, real and immediate risks to life. The dissenting judgments suggest growing judicial concern about the adequacy of police responses to domestic violence and indicate potential for future development of the law.

The decision has significant implications for victims of domestic abuse and their families, limiting common law remedies while preserving human rights claims. It highlights the tension between protecting police operational discretion and ensuring accountability for failures that result in preventable deaths.

Verdict: Appeal dismissed on the negligence claim; cross-appeal dismissed, allowing the article 2 Human Rights Act claim to proceed to trial.

Source: Michael v Chief Constable of South Wales Police [2015] UKSC 2