Court: Supreme Court
Judgment Date: 8 February 2018
Where Reported: [2018] UKSC 4 [2018] A.C. 736
Legal Issues in Robinson v Chief Constable of West Yorkshire
The legal issue in Robinson v Chief Constable of West Yorkshire involved the duty of care owed by the police to the general public during the execution of their duties.
Specifically, Robinson v Chief Constable of West Yorkshire examined whether police officers owed a duty of care to avoid causing reasonably foreseeable personal injuries to bystanders during an arrest, and if so, whether the police officers in this case breached that duty​​​​.
Material Facts in Robinson v Chief Constable of West Yorkshire
The case involved two police officers attempting to arrest a suspected drug dealer on a busy street.
During the arrest, a struggle ensued, and the officers, along with the suspect, knocked into Elizabeth Robinson, a 76-year-old passerby.
Mrs. Robinson was injured as a result. She sued the Chief Constable of West Yorkshire Police for personal injuries, alleging negligence by the two officers.
Robinson v Chief Constable of West Yorkshire questioned whether the actions of the police, in the context of arresting a suspect, could give rise to a duty of care towards a member of the public, leading to liability for negligence if breached​​​​.
Judgment in Robinson v Chief Constable of West Yorkshire
The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, overturning the decisions of the lower courts.
It held that the police owed a duty of care to avoid causing reasonably foreseeable personal injuries to pedestrians, including Mrs. Robinson, in the vicinity of an arrest.
The Court found that this was a case of a positive act by the police, not an omission, and that there was a reasonably foreseeable risk of injury if an arrest was attempted in a busy street.
The Court determined that the police officers owed a duty of care towards pedestrians in the immediate vicinity when the arrest was attempted.
As a result, the defendant was liable to Mrs. Robinson for damages to be assessed​​​​.
The Reason for the Decision in Robinson v Chief Constable of West Yorkshire
The Supreme Court’s decision was based on the application of established principles of negligence law to the specific circumstances of the case.
The Court clarified that the police, like any other public authority or private individual, are generally under the same liabilities in tort and owe a duty of care to avoid causing reasonably foreseeable harm – see Spartan Steel v Martin (1973).
In addressing whether the police owed a duty of care to Mrs. Robinson, the Court rejected the notion of a blanket immunity for police in negligence cases.
It distinguished between positive acts and omissions, emphasising that the police can be held liable for injuries caused by their positive actions, even in the course of their core functions like arresting suspects.
The Court found that the situation involved a foreseeable risk of injury to pedestrians, making it necessary for the police to consider the safety of bystanders.
The Court also discussed the application of the “Caparo test“, clarifying that the existence of a duty of care does not always depend on this test, but rather on the application of established principles of the law of negligence.
The police’s actions in attempting the arrest were considered a positive act that initiated a chain of events leading to Mrs. Robinson’s injuries.
The Court found that the suspect’s resistance to arrest and subsequent collision with Mrs. Robinson was a foreseeable outcome of the police’s actions, thereby establishing a causal link between the police’s breach of duty and the harm suffered by Mrs. Robinson.
Furthermore, the Court emphasised that in determining the existence of a duty of care, it is essential to consider whether imposing such a duty is fair, just, and reasonable.
In Robinson v Chief Constable of West Yorkshire, the Court found that it was reasonable to expect the police to take into account the safety of bystanders while performing an arrest in a busy public place​​​​.
Conclusion
Robinson v Chief Constable of West Yorkshire is a significant case in clarifying the scope of police liability in negligence.
It establishes that police officers owe a duty of care to avoid causing reasonably foreseeable injuries to bystanders during their operations.
This case underscores the principle that the police, like any other entity, can be held accountable for negligence arising from their positive actions, especially in situations where their actions create a foreseeable risk of harm to others – see Stovin v Wise (1996).
