Published On: 19th October, 2024
Authored By: Tanmeet Singh Sachdeva
University of Surrey
Case Name: Robinson v Chief Constable of West Yorkshire
Court: The Supreme Court
Judgement Date: 8th February 2018
Citation: [2018] UKSC 4 [2018] A.C. 736
Counsel: Appellant Nicholas Bowen QC, David Lemer, Duncan Fairgrieve
Respondent Jeremy Johnson QC, Ian Skelt
Introduction
Claimant: The claimant is Mrs. Robinson, a 76-year-oldwoman.
Defendant: The defendant is the West Yorkshire Police
Nature: This is an appealed Civil Case: Tort Law (Negligence)
Procedural History: Mrs Robinson filed a claim at the High court against the West Yorkshire Police which was dismissed. Mrs Robinson then appealed the decision to the Court of Appeal who agreed with the previous court and upheld the lower court’s dismissal. Mrs Robinson then appealed to the Supreme Court.
Facts of Case
1) It was on October 16, 2008, in Huddersfield, West Yorkshire when the accident occurred.
2) Mrs. Robinson, a 76-year-old woman, was walking along a street.
3) Police officers from West Yorkshire at that time were trying to catch and arrest Mr Williams.
4) The attempted arrest was taking place at a public place where all the members of the public were.
5) When the police moved in to arrest Mr Williams, he made an attempt to flee which caused there to be a struggle between the drug dealer and the police.
6) During this struggle, both the policemen and the drug dealer collided with Mrs Robinson.
7) This resulted in Mrs. Robinson to fall to the ground and suffer injuries, including fractures to her hip and other physical harm.
8) Mrs. Robinson claimed that the West Yorkshire Police were negligent with how their arrest, and this caused damage to her,
9) She argued that the police owes her a duty of care and that duty of care has been breached which resulted into damage.[1]
Legal Issue
The primary issue at the end of the day is if the police are negligent towards Mrs. Robinson when on duty.
The sub issues that must be looked into are:
- Should the officers owe Mrs. Robinson a duty of care in order to prevent her from being injured during the arrest of a suspect in a public place?
- Are police officer’s immune from liability in negligence for actions taken in the course of their operational duties, such as making arrests?
- Whether the Caparo test should be applied to every case?[2]
Arguments
Appellant Mrs Robinson
Duty of Care:
- Mrs. Robinson argued that when the police chose to arrest the suspect in a public setting, therefore owing her a duty of care as a bystander. She said that in order to protect herself and other surrounding pedestrians from harm, police had to have taken reasonable safety measures. The police however did not do that and instead when trying to arrest the suspected drug dealer instead hurt a member of the public.
Operational Immunity:
- Mrs. Robinson said that the police shouldn’t be exempt from accountability for careless acts committed while doing their official responsibilities. She maintained that just like private citizens, public officials should be held responsible for any harm that their acts may reasonably be expected to create.[3]
Respondent (West Yorkshire Police)
No Duty of Care:
- The police argued that they do not owe a duty of care to Mrs. Robinson based on what happened. They argued that it was not fair, just and reasonable to do so as per Hill v Chief Constable of West Yorkshire[4] therefore because of this they cannot be liable because that is a part of the criteria of the Caparo test. They said that arresting the suspect was their first priority and that requiring spectators to exercise caution may interfere with their capacity to carry out their official responsibilities.
Immunity from Negligence Claims
- The police claimed that, the precedent set from the case of Hill v Chief Constable of West Yorkshire[5] made them generally immune from negligence claims. [6]
Court’s Analysis
The Court looked to answer the answer the three key questions: (1) whether the police owed a duty of care to Mrs. Robinson, (2) whether the police are immune from liability in negligence claims and finally (3) is the Caparo test to be used in every case.
Legal Reasoning:
Firstly, the court dismissed the idea and myth, police officers have an immunity from negligence claims and stated that the Caparo test, from Caparo Industries v Dickman,[7] does not apply all the time in every case.
The Court emphasised that the case of Hill v Chief Constable of West Yorkshire[8] did not give immunity to the police, but it was a case where it was seen that it would not be fair, just and reasonable for them to owe a duty of care to the victim because in that case the claimant argued that the police owed a duty because they failed in protecting them which is an omission. Similarly in Mitchell v Glasgow City Council,[9] the claimant argued that police owed a duty of care however it was because of an omission.
Relevant Law:
Lord Reed made it clear that there is no definitive test to assess whether a duty of care exists and that if there is a similar precedent or existing category for deciding if a duty of care exists then that should be followed. However, if the case is novel then the court will use the Caparo test.[10]
Interpretation:
The court interpreted the law and stated that that this case involved the police’s positive actions, not an omission, which is what the Court of Appeal had thought. Lord Reed emphasised that the Mrs. Robinson was arguing that the police’s actions which directly caused her injury was negligent.
Decision
The Supreme Court allowed the appeal and found in favour of the claimant by finding West Yorkshire police liable for Mrs. Robinson’s injuries as they owed her a duty of care. For the police to have arrested the suspect in a public area which is very crowded without ensuring that they will not cause any damage to anyone is deemed negligent by the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court’s decision overturns the decision made by both the lower courts, and the remedy provided was compensation to the injuries that Mrs Robinson faced.
Significance
The decision made in this case is significant as this has evolved the way duty of care is ro be established. The Caparo test which was used in every case should now only be applied in novel cases and the approach of existing precedent/categories of duty of care should now be applied.
Subsequent Developments:
The Robinson decision has had a major impact on how courts handle negligence claims against public servants, especially the police. The decision has curtailed the reach of the Hill exemption, so strengthening the notion that police may be held accountable for carelessness, especially where the acts are direct rather than the result of omissions.
The approach was then applied to Darnley v Croydon NHS Trust,[11] where a patient left the Hospital after wrongly being told that there would be a long wait. The patient then suffered permanent brain injuries. As the patient had booked in, he had entered into a relationship with the hospital and therefore they would have to make sure they do not provide any false information.
Conclusion
The Supreme Courts decision in this case is a landmark judgement within the law of negligence as it answers many of the issues that are present within tort law such as regarding the use of the Caparo test, the issue surrounding the general immunity of police officers. By explicitly stating that police officers owe people a duty of care such as everybody else this has clarified the law and established an important precedent. This decision has also clarified the reasons of previous cases indicating that the police have immunity but this case clarifies that whilst the police are normally exempt of liability arising from a failure to act but they will be held liable for injuries that they have directly caused such as with Mrs Robinson.
The future of the Caparo test was also discussed and expressed. The test comes from the case Caparo v Dickman,[12] which is a 3-part test set for establishing a duty of care. Stages are, firstly, whether the damage or harm reasonably foreseeable? Is there proximity between the claimant and defendant to issue a claim and finally is it fair, just and reasonable to do so. In addition, it was made clear that not all negligence claims fall under the authority of the Caparo test. Rather, courts should frequently follow well-established categories of duty of care and should from now on only use the Caparo test in novel situations.
In conclusion, this case summarises all the issues that were presented at the start of the case and ends with the conclusion that there needs to be a balance with the role and duties of the police and the protection of the members of the public.
References
[1] Robinson v Chief Constable of West Yorkshire [2018] UKSC 4 [2018] A.C. 736 [4-7]
[2] Ibid [20]
[3] Ibid 736
[4] [1989] A.C. 53.
[5] Ibid.
[6] Robinson (n1) 737.
[7] [1990] 2 A.C. 605
[8] Hill (n4)
[9] [2009] UKHL 11, [2009] 1 A.C. 874
[10] Robinson (n1) 25-26.
[11] [2018] UKSC 50 [2019] A.C. 831
[12] [1990] 2 A.C. 605
