Court: House of Lords
Citation: [1987] UKHL 12, [1989] AC 53
Facts of Hill v Chief Constable of West Yorkshire
The case of Hill v Chief Constable of West Yorkshire arose following the tragic murder of Jacqueline Hill, a 20-year-old student at Leeds University, who was the last victim of the infamous serial killer Peter Sutcliffe, known as the “Yorkshire Ripper.”
Between 1975 and 1980, Sutcliffe murdered 13 young women and attempted to kill several others. Despite being questioned by the police on multiple occasions and being arrested for drunk driving in April 1980, Sutcliffe continued his killing spree, with Jacqueline Hill becoming his final victim on 17 November 1980.
Jacqueline Hill’s mother, the claimant in this case, filed a claim against the West Yorkshire Police for negligence. She alleged that the police’s failure to apprehend Sutcliffe earlier, despite substantial evidence that he was the killer, directly led to her daughter’s death.
A key part of her claim was the criticism of the police’s focus on a hoax letter from the murderer, which diverted attention from more critical investigative leads, such as information from Trevor Birdsall, a long-time associate of Sutcliffe, who believed Sutcliffe was the killer. This information was ignored for months, despite its potential value in apprehending the murderer.
The claimant sought damages on the basis that the police’s negligence in their investigation of Sutcliffe’s crimes caused the loss of her daughter. The application was made to strike out the case on the grounds that it disclosed no cause of action. The Queen’s Bench struck out the claim, and the Court of Appeal upheld the decision. The matter was eventually brought before the House of Lords.
Legal Issues
The central legal questions in Hill v Chief Constable of West Yorkshire were:
- Do the police owe a specific duty of care to individual members of the public to prevent crimes and apprehend criminals?
- Can the police be held liable for negligence in failing to prevent harm caused by a criminal if they are not directly responsible for creating the risk?
These issues explored the broader question of whether the police have a general duty to protect the public from harm caused by criminals, and whether that duty can extend to personal liability in cases where the police fail to prevent such harm.
Hill v Chief Constable of West Yorkshire Judgement
The House of Lords unanimously struck out the claimant’s case, ruling that no justiciable cause of action existed. The judgement was based on two primary considerations: the absence of a specific duty of care owed by the police to an individual member of the public, and the broader public policy considerations that underpinned the police’s responsibilities.
Lord Keith of Kinkel, delivering the lead judgement, made several key points:
- Duty of Care: While it was acknowledged that police officers can be liable for negligence in tort to a person who is injured as a direct result of their acts or omissions, Lord Keith emphasised that the police do not owe a general duty of care to prevent harm to individuals. The police have a duty to enforce criminal law, but this duty is not owed to individual members of the public. It is instead directed at the general public as a whole, and the manner in which it is carried out is subject to the discretion of the police.
- Discretion and Policy: Lord Keith also pointed out that a chief officer of police has a wide discretion in how they discharge their duty. This discretion includes decisions about resource allocation, investigative priorities, and which leads to pursue in the course of a criminal investigation. Such decisions, Lord Keith argued, should not be subjected to judicial scrutiny in negligence claims.
- Foreseeability and Proximity: The judgement reiterated that foreseeability of harm alone is not sufficient to establish a duty of care. For a duty to arise, there must be a special relationship between the plaintiff and the defendant. In this case, while it was foreseeable that Sutcliffe posed a danger to women in the area, Hill was merely one of a large group of women at risk. There was no special relationship or proximity between Hill and the police that would establish a duty of care.
- Public Policy: Lord Keith also highlighted public policy concerns in the case, arguing that imposing a duty of care on the police in relation to their role in preventing crime could lead to defensive policing. This would potentially detract from the effective enforcement of the law, as police resources would be diverted towards defending against negligence claims. The House of Lords expressed concern about the burden this could place on police forces, potentially leading to a chilling effect on the police’s ability to carry out their duties effectively.
- Comparison to Dorset Yacht Case: Lord Keith drew a comparison to the Dorset Yacht Co Ltd v Home Office [1970] UKHL 2 case, where the House of Lords had imposed a duty of care on the Home Office for the actions of juveniles under their custody. However, Lord Keith distinguished Hill v Chief Constable of West Yorkshire from Dorset Yacht, noting that in Dorset Yacht, the defendant (Home Office) had created a special relationship with the claimants by taking responsibility for the juveniles’ custody, which was not the case in Hill.
Lord Templeman, concurring with the judgement, emphasised the public policy concerns. He noted the emotional weight of the case, recognising the mother’s belief that her daughter’s death could have been prevented if the police had been more efficient.
However, he ultimately agreed with the majority that no duty of care was owed by the police. He warned that holding the police liable for failing to display the investigative skill of fictional detectives like Sherlock Holmes would be unworkable in practice.
Key Legal Principles
- No General Duty of Care: The ruling in Hill v Chief Constable of West Yorkshire firmly established that the police do not owe a general duty of care to the public at large to prevent harm from criminals.
- Discretion of the Police: The decision reinforced the principle that the police have a broad discretion regarding how they perform their duties and make decisions in criminal investigations.
- Foreseeability and Proximity: The judgement reiterated that mere foreseeability of harm is not enough to establish a duty of care; there must be a closer relationship between the claimant and the defendant.
- Public Policy Considerations: The House of Lords expressed concerns that imposing a duty of care on the police would interfere with their ability to perform their duties effectively and may lead to defensive policing.
Conclusion
The case of Hill v Chief Constable of West Yorkshire is a landmark decision in UK tort law, as it established that the police do not owe a general duty of care to individual members of the public to prevent crime. The judgement highlighted the importance of police discretion in criminal investigations and the potential public policy concerns associated with imposing tort liability on law enforcement agencies. While the ruling has been refined in subsequent cases, Hill remains a cornerstone in understanding the scope of police liability in negligence.
