School of Law
Assignment Submission Form
Student Name: Gabrielle Wall
Student ID Number: 18318255
Course Title: Law
Module Title: Torts (LA1015)
Assignment Title:
“Critically analyse the judgement of the United Kingdom Supreme Court in Robinson v Chief Constable of West Yorkshire Police [2018] UKSC 4.”
Lecturer(s): Mr. Desmond Ryan
Date Submitted: 12/11/2018
Word Count/Page Count:
I have read and I understand the plagiarism provisions in the General Regulations of the University Calendar for the current year, found at: http://www.tcd.ie/calendar
I have also completed the Online Tutorial on avoiding plagiarism ‘Ready, Steady, Write’, located at http://tcd-ie.libguides.com/plagiarism/ready-steady-write
Signed: Date:
“Critically analyse the judgement of the United Kingdom Supreme Court in Robinson v Chief Constable of West Yorkshire Police [2018] UKSC 4.”
In this essay I set out to briefly explain the facts behind this monumental case and the judgement which was made by the Supreme Court in Robinson v Chief Constable of West Yorkshire Police [2018] UKSC 4. I will also give my own critical analysis in regards to said judgement as I lay out, what I believe to be the positive and negative aspects of the judgement. I shall also explain the significance of this judgement in relation to tort law and the implications that derived from this judgement for subsequent cases. Furthermore I will explain my overall thoughts and critical analysis on the judgement as a whole.
Background.
In July 2008 the appellant, Mrs. Elizabeth Robinson, an elderly woman of seventy eight years of age, was knocked over and injured by a group of three men. Two of these men were police officers (DS Neil Willan and DS Damian Roebuck) who were attempting to arrest a suspected drug dealer (Mr. Ashley Williams). This occurred as a consequence of Mr. Willan spotting Mr. Williams apparently dealing drugs in a park in Huddersfield. After calling for back up, he was assisted by his fellow police officers in attempting to make the arrest in a moderately busy area. When the officers approached Mr. Williams, Mrs. Robinson was within a yard of him. Mr. Williams made the first contact with the elderly plaintiff by knocking her to the ground, consequently, the three men fell on top of her and she suffered injuries due to this.
It was clear that there was foreseeability that Mrs. Robinson would be injured due to the fact that she was within very close proximity to Mr. Williams, she was described as being elderly and frail and there was a “significant and foreseeable risk that he [Mr. Williams] would try to escape” . Therefore in the view of the Recorder the officers had acted negligently and should have taken better caution in order to protect the members of the public from harm. Nonetheless, in a previous case, Hill v Chief Constable of West Yorkshire it was ruled that police should have immunity against claims of negligence and therefore this principle applied in this case too.
However, the Court of Appeals went against this ruling. Lord Justice Hallett ruled that when the Caparo test was applied it proved that the police did not owe Mrs. Robinson a duty of care. Although recognising that there was no duty of care, it was also observed that even if there was it was evident that Mr. Williams caused the harm to Mrs. Robinson and therefore this case was about the failure of the police to protect Mrs. Robinson and so was not a positive act case and thus was unfair, unjust and unreasonable.
Judgement- point 1.
The judgement I will be dealing with in this essay, is the judgement of the Supreme Court. In this judgement the idea of the Caparo test was rejected. It was stated that one should only impose a duty of care where it is seen as fair, just and reasonable based on the particular facts of a specific case, and so deciding whether or not a duty of care should be imposed on someone should not be solely dependent on the Caparo test. This overruled the Court of Appeals when they applied this test to this same case. The Caparo test is a test which was developed by the judges in Caparo Industries plc v Dickman . Previous to this case, it was believed that the Caparo test could be used in all cases, circumstances and situations, regardless of any varying facts, to determine whether a duty of care is owed or not. It is a threefold test which clearly and simply states that the harm caused as a consequence of the negligent action of a case must be reasonably foreseeable, the relationship between the parties involved must be a relationship of reasonable proximity, and furthermore, it must be fair, just and reasonable to impose liability.
Instead of using the Caparo test, it should be only where established legal principles don’t provide a clear answer to the questions posed by the courts that the courts may need to consider whether a duty of care in said situation would be a reasonable development of the law consistent with established legal principles (fair, just & reasonable). However, it is clear that this case involves only well established legal principles of the law of negligence and therefore does not require the court to consider the development of the law.
Critical Analysis.
In my opinion this is a positive development of the law. On one hand, of course, it would be ideal if there was a universal test, such as the Caparo test, which could be applied to all cases and all circumstances to determine whether or not a duty of care should be applied. It would mean that making judgements would be much simpler, faster and the outcome could be more foreseeable. This of course would be a positive aspect for judges making decisions, as well as plaintiffs and defendants as their cases would be ruled upon in a timelier manner. Unfortunately, however, it simply is not possible to invent a test which can be fairly applied to all cases, this is because: what is fair in one case, may not be fair in another case due to varying situations, facts and circumstances in each different case. This can be seen clearly as in Hill v Chief Constable of West Yorkshire it was ruled that police should have immunity from claims of negligence, however, it is clear in this case Robinson v Chief Constable of West Yorkshire Police that the police should be held responsible for the negligence performed by them. Due to the varying circumstances and facts of each case, they are clearly very different and therefore the police should not be immune for their wrong doings in Robinson and should be held responsible for their negligent actions.
Judgement- point 2.
Furthermore, this judgement ruled that the police did in fact have a duty of care to the plaintiff. It was decided that the police should be treated like the average citizen when it comes to harm caused by their own actions or wrong doing. In this case, the arresting officer was aware that the suspect may attempt to escape & thus the suspect was a risk to members of the public if this occurred. Although the police officer would not have attempted the arrest at the time if he knew a member of the public was at risk of being injured, he simply failed to notice Mrs. Robinson’s presence, even though she was in plain sight and he should have seen her. This proves that the officer clearly acted negligently. Due to these circumstances, the officers owed a duty of care to Mrs. Robinson and so by causing injury to the plaintiff, they were in breach of that duty. The plaintiff’s injuries were caused as a consequence of the police officer’s breach of duty of care towards her. It was ruled that the police did in fact have a duty of care towards the plaintiff.
Critical analysis
I believe this is an appropriate judgement and the police did owe the plaintiff a duty of care. Although, generally speaking, the police should not owe a duty of care to members of the public (except in special circumstances) when carrying out their role of investigating and preventing crime, it is necessary that they are ordinarily held accountable for their own actions. The reason that police should not owe a duty of care ordinarily, when carrying out their function of investigating and preventing crime is because if they did, their primary function of preventing crime would take secondary importance and so it is in the best interest of all citizens for the police to focus on their role of protecting citizens from crime in society by investigating crimes, rather than to focus their attention on their duty of care towards members of the public. When the principles of the law of negligence are applied it can be clearly seen that the police should be under a duty of care to protect citizens from danger of injury which the police, themselves have caused.
Similar to private individuals, the police are not under a duty of care to prevent injury or harm occurring to members of the public as result of third parties, but they are certainly under a duty of care to others when it comes to injuries or harm caused as a result of their own actions.
This is an appropriate and necessary element of this judgement as it helps to clear up some of the confusion in regards to public authorities which resulted from the case of Anns v Merton London Borough Council . The judgement of Robinson v Chief Constable of West Yorkshire Police explains that public authorities are “generally subject to the same liabilities in tort as private individuals and bodies..”. Therefore they should be treated in a similar manner to all other citizens. Thus, they must be held responsible for their own actions and so the fact that the police officer in this case was aware of the potential danger arising for members of the public if he was negligent in his performance of making the arrest of the suspect, but still failed to take notice of Mrs. Robinson, proves that he did in fact owe the plaintiff a duty of care but failed.
Judgement- point 3.
In this judgement, the court emphasised that this is a case based on a positive act, rather than a case based on omissions. This contrasted it with the previous case of Hill due to the fact that the Hill case was based on omissions and no duty of care was imposed on the police.
Critical analysis.
I believe that the court was correct to rule that there is no reason to grant police immunity from being sued for negligence for their own actions. It is fair to say that the police do in fact, owe a duty of care to avoid causing, by positive acts, foreseeable personal injury to members of the public.
Overall analysis
I believe that this is a fair judgement. However, contrary to what is said about this case, I do not believe it is monumental in any way. It is a judgement which further reiterates the fact that the police have the exact same duty of care that all other citizens have towards one another in regards to their own actions which may cause injury or harm to another member of the public. It cannot be said that this is ground breaking in anyway as although police, as part of their job, have a very specific role to perform of investigating and thus preventing crime, above all, they too are citizens and so of course should owe other citizens a duty of care with their actions.
It is important to acknowledge that the police have always been under a duty of care where injury to others is caused by their own positive actions and thus, this case only reinforces this principle, it does not develop the law any further. The idea that the police ever had blanket immunity from claims is illusory.
Implications for subsequent cases.
Although this case does not change the law, it is clear that this case is capable of affecting many other areas of law, outside of the civil responsibilities and liabilities of the police. Following this case, public authorities have now been put on the same general level as members of the public in regards to tortious liability and so the Parliament of the United Kingdom should be incentivised to generate exceptions to common law rules where they see fit. They may choose to do so by passing explicit rights for public bodies only or alternatively, they could set out specific immunities for public bodies, namely the police force.
Moreover, this case distinguished between cases of positive acts and cases of omissions. Cases of omission are cases which involve the police failing to do something, however this case was one which involved a positive act. This shall have implications on subsequent cases as it sets a precedence that police officers can and should be held liable not only for what they fail to do (as was previously assumed), but also for acts that they have done. Even if they did not actively cause the danger which resulted in the harm being done this can still be applied if they failed to prevent said danger. In this case it was the act of negligently attempting to arrest the suspect in a moderately busy area and in the process of doing so, failed to notice the plaintiff and thus breached their duty of care to her and caused her injuries.
Furthermore, following this case, police officers’ decisions relating to arrests will now be subject to even more scrutiny. They shall be expected to consider whether harm may occur to any member of the public in the process of attempting to make an arrest and so will have to question themselves and their decisions more cautiously. They should consider whether they must wait for back up before attempting the arrest, how long they should wait for back up before making said arrest, how many guards to call in as back up and also whether the place that they are making the arrest is sufficiently calm and empty of hazards if the suspect did decide to attempt to escape.
How this case further developed the law.
Anns test
Conclusion.
To conclude, in this essay I have outlined the key background facts of the case of Robinson v Chief Constable of West Yorkshire [2018] UKSC4. Furthermore I have discussed the judgement made by the Supreme Court and I also critically analysed the main points of the judgement of this case made by the Supreme Court. In addition, I have critically analysed what I believe to be the positive and negative aspects of this judgement by laying them out and discussing them and furthermore, I went on to explain why I perceive them as positive or negative aspects. Moreover I explained the implications which I believe this case may have on subsequent cases. I also gave my overall opinion on the case which involved acknowledging that it has not, in my opinion progressed the law any further, only reinforced previous policies.
Bibliography
Table of cases.
Robinson v Chief Constable of West Yorkshire Police [2018] UKSC 4
Hill v Chief Constable of West Yorkshire [1989] AC 53
Caparo Industries plc v Dickman [1990] 2 AC 605
Secondary Sources.
Books
McMahon Bryan M E, Binchy William. Law of Torts (4th edn, Dublin, Bloomsbury Professional 2013).