Robinson v Chief Constable of West Yorkshire Police is one of the most influential decisions in modern English tort law. Delivered by the Supreme Court in 2018, the case clarified the principles governing the duty of care, particularly concerning the liability of the police when their operational actions cause injury to members of the public. The judgement marked a departure from a rigid reliance on the three-part Caparo test and reasserted that the development of the duty of care should primarily follow the common law and precedent.
The decision in Robinson v Chief Constable of West Yorkshire Police has since been regarded as a landmark authority that corrected a widespread misunderstanding arising from Hill v Chief Constable of West Yorkshire, where it had been assumed that the police enjoyed general immunity from negligence claims. Instead, the Supreme Court reaffirmed that the police are subject to ordinary principles of negligence, and that a duty of care can arise when their positive acts directly cause foreseeable harm.
Facts of Robinson v Chief Constable of West Yorkshire Police Case
In July 2008, Mrs Robinson, a 76-year-old woman, was walking along a street in Huddersfield when she was caught up in an attempted arrest. Two police officers, acting on suspicion that a man was dealing drugs, attempted to apprehend him on a public street. The suspect resisted arrest, leading to a brief struggle. During the scuffle, the suspect and the officers collided with Mrs Robinson, knocking her to the ground. She was injured when both officers fell on top of her.
The officers had foreseen the possibility that the suspect might attempt to escape but failed to notice Mrs Robinson’s close presence. The claimant alleged that the officers’ actions created a foreseeable risk of harm to her and that they had breached their duty of care by failing to take reasonable precautions in making the arrest in a crowded public space.
The trial judge applied the Caparo Industries plc v Dickman three-stage test to determine whether a duty of care existed. It was found that the harm to Mrs Robinson was foreseeable and that she was in close proximity to the officers’ actions. However, the judge dismissed the claim on the third stage — that it would not be “fair, just and reasonable” to impose liability — on the basis of Hill v Chief Constable of West Yorkshire, which was understood to provide the police with immunity from negligence claims in the exercise of their duties.
The Court of Appeal upheld this decision, reasoning that police officers owed no duty of care in circumstances arising from the prevention or investigation of crime. The court viewed the incident as an omission rather than a positive act, since the harm was ultimately caused by the suspect, not directly by the police. Mrs Robinson appealed to the Supreme Court.
Issues
The central issue before the Supreme Court in Robinson v Chief Constable of West Yorkshire Police was:
- Whether the police owe a duty of care to an individual injured during the execution of an arrest, where the harm arises from their positive conduct rather than an omission.
The broader question was whether the Caparo test should be applied as a universal framework for determining the existence of a duty of care, or whether courts should rely on established common law principles and precedent.
Robinson v Chief Constable of West Yorkshire Police Judgement
The Supreme Court, by a majority, allowed the appeal and held that the police did owe a duty of care to Mrs Robinson. The leading judgement was delivered by Lord Reed, with whom Lady Hale and Lord Hodge agreed. Lord Mance and Lord Hughes agreed that a duty of care existed, but gave separate reasoning.
In holding for Mrs Robinson, the Supreme Court clarified that there was no general rule exempting the police from liability in negligence when performing their operational duties. The Court stated that the ordinary principles of the law of negligence applied equally to the police as they did to private individuals or other public authorities.
Lord Reed’s reasoning in Robinson v Chief Constable of West Yorkshire Police also redefined the approach to determining a duty of care, rejecting the notion that the Caparo test was a universal requirement in every negligence case.
Reasoning of the Court in Robinson v Chief Constable of West Yorkshire Police
Misinterpretation of Hill v Chief Constable of West Yorkshire
Lord Reed observed that the decision in Hill v Chief Constable of West Yorkshire had been misunderstood for decades. The case did not establish a general principle of immunity for the police but rather confirmed that, in general, there is no liability for omissions — that is, a failure to prevent harm caused by third parties.
However, the circumstances in Robinson v Chief Constable of West Yorkshire Police did not concern an omission. The officers had engaged in a positive act, directly causing physical harm to Mrs Robinson. Therefore, the usual principles of negligence applied. The police, like anyone else, are liable for causing foreseeable injury through their positive acts.
Lord Reed emphasised that “there is no general rule that the police are not under any duty of care when discharging their function of preventing and investigating crime.” The police are subject to liability where a duty arises under ordinary negligence principles unless statute or specific common law rules dictate otherwise.
Rejection of a Universal Caparo Test
The Supreme Court rejected the notion that Caparo Industries plc v Dickman established a general test applicable to all negligence claims. Lord Reed clarified that Caparo did not create a new framework but was simply one in a line of cases concerning the recognition of new categories of duty.
In Robinson v Chief Constable of West Yorkshire Police, Lord Reed stated:
“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 mistaken.”
Instead, courts should begin with established principles and precedents. If previous cases already recognise a duty of care in similar circumstances — such as in cases of personal injury caused by a positive act — then the court need only apply existing law. The “fair, just and reasonable” stage is relevant only where the court is asked to recognise a novel duty not previously established.
Application to the Present Case
Applying these principles, the Supreme Court held that the officers’ conduct amounted to a positive act creating a foreseeable risk of injury to the claimant. The harm suffered by Mrs Robinson occurred as a direct result of their actions. The Court concluded that the officers had breached their duty of care by carrying out the arrest without taking reasonable precautions to protect nearby pedestrians.
Therefore, in Robinson v Chief Constable of West Yorkshire Police, the Supreme Court affirmed that a duty of care existed and that the officers were liable for the claimant’s injuries.
Concurring and Separate Opinions
While Lord Mance and Lord Hughes agreed that the police owed a duty of care, they each wrote separate opinions. Lord Mance accepted that courts cannot ignore policy considerations, but acknowledged that a direct physical interface between the police and the public during an arrest falls within an established area of police liability.
Lord Hughes also referred to the policy limits on the imposition of a duty of care on the police, noting that policing often involves difficult judgements and operational risks. However, he agreed that this case involved a positive act causing direct physical harm, thereby justifying liability.
Key Legal Principles Established in Robinson v Chief Constable of West Yorkshire Police
The decision in Robinson v Chief Constable of West Yorkshire Police reaffirmed several important principles in negligence law:
- No General Police Immunity: The police do not enjoy blanket immunity from negligence claims. They are subject to ordinary principles of tort law when their positive acts cause foreseeable harm.
- Clarification of Hill: The Hill case does not prevent liability; it merely confirms that omissions or failures to prevent harm caused by third parties usually do not attract liability.
- Caparo Not a Universal Test: Caparo v Dickman did not create a single test for all duty of care cases. Courts must apply established precedent first and resort to policy-based reasoning only in novel cases.
- Distinction Between Acts and Omissions: Liability arises more readily in cases involving positive acts that create danger, rather than failures to act.
Conclusion
In conclusion, Robinson v Chief Constable of West Yorkshire Police stands as a turning point in the law of negligence. It corrected decades of misunderstanding, reaffirmed the application of established tort principles to the police, and clarified the proper use of the Caparo framework.
By holding that the police owed a duty of care to Mrs Robinson, the Supreme Court in Robinson v Chief Constable of West Yorkshire Police underscored that liability in negligence depends not on broad notions of fairness, but on established legal principles and precedent. The case thus represents both a modern reaffirmation of the common law method and a vital development in ensuring accountability within public authority functions.