Court: Supreme Court
Judgment Date: 28 January 2015
Where Reported: [2015] UKSC 2; [2015] A.C. 1732
Legal Issue in Michael v Chief Constable of South Wales Police
The central legal issue in Michael v Chief Constable of South Wales concerned the duty of care owed by police forces to individuals reporting imminent threats to their safety.
Specifically, Michael v Chief Constable of South Wales Police addressed whether the police owed a duty of care in negligence to a victim who had reported threats of violence, including threats to kill, and whether this duty extended to taking reasonable steps to protect the victim.
Additionally, the case considered the applicability of Article 2 of the European Convention on Human Rights (right to life) in the context of police response to emergency calls reporting threats to life​​.
Material Facts in Michael v Chief Constable of South Wales
Joanna Michael called the police to report that her former partner had assaulted her and threatened to kill her.
The call was initially received by a neighbouring police force and passed on to the appropriate police force, but the threat to kill was not communicated.
The police graded the call as a lower priority, requiring a response within 60 minutes. Before the police responded, Michael called 999 again, during which she was heard screaming.
When the police arrived 15 minutes later, they found her stabbed to death.
Her former partner was convicted of her murder. The victim’s estate and dependants sued the two police forces involved, alleging negligence and breach of Article 2 of the European Convention on Human Rights (right to life) due to the police’s failure to respond promptly to the emergency call​​.
Judgment in Michael v Chief Constable of South Wales
The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal on the negligence claim and ruled in favour of the police, granting summary judgment. However, it permitted the claim under Article 2 to proceed to trial.
The Supreme Court, while dismissing the appeal on the negligence claim, held that the police’s duty for the preservation of peace was owed to the public at large, not to specific individuals, thereby negating a private law duty of care.
The court reasoned that imposing such a duty could lead to irrational confinement and was unnecessary to effectuate the rights guaranteed by Articles 2 and 3 of the Convention. These rights could be addressed through the Human Rights Act 1998.
Conversely, the cross-appeal on Article 2 was dismissed, allowing the claim to proceed to trial, as the handling of the victim’s original 999 call and the circumstances surrounding it were determined to be matters of fact for trial consideration​​.
The Reason for the Decision in Michael v Chief Constable of South Wales
The Supreme Court’s decision in Michael v Chief Constable of South Wales was based on the distinction between public duties and private law duties.
The court recognised that the police’s duty to prevent crime and preserve peace is a public duty owed to society at large, not to individual citizens.
This distinction was critical in determining that a private law duty of care in negligence was not owed to the victim in this case.
The court in Michael v Chief Constable of South Wales Police emphasised that a duty in negligence requires a close or special relationship, which was not present in the interaction between the police and the victim.
The court argued that extending such a duty based on the mere existence of a protective system funded by public resources would impose an unjustified additional burden on the public to compensate victims for harm caused by third-party actions, for which the state is not responsible.
Moreover, the court argued that imposing a duty of care in negligence on the police for failing to prevent a crime could lead to unintended consequences, such as irrational confinement of liability and a potential increase in defensive policing practices.
The court also noted that it is the role of Parliament, not the judiciary, to determine if there should be a public compensation scheme for victims of violent crimes due to police omissions.
Regarding the Human Rights Act 1998 and Article 2 of the European Convention on Human Rights, the court held that claims related to the right to life could be addressed through this legislative framework, without the need to develop the common law of negligence.
In conclusion, the court maintained in Michael v Chief Constable of South Wales that the claim in negligence should not proceed, as it did not meet the requirements of a private law duty of care.
However, the claim under Article 2 was allowed to proceed to trial, acknowledging that the police’s response to the emergency call and their subsequent actions were factual matters that required judicial examination​​.
Conclusion
Michael v Chief Constable of South Wales is an important case in delineating the scope of police liability in negligence.
It reaffirms the principle that the police owe a general duty to the public at large rather than a private law duty of care to individual members of the public.
Michael v Chief Constable of South Wales also highlights the complexities involved in balancing the need for effective law enforcement with the rights of individuals, particularly in emergency situations.
The decision underscores the role of the Human Rights Act and the European Convention on Human Rights in addressing failures by public authorities, including the police, to protect individuals’ rights, notably the right to life​​.
