Hill v Chief Constable of West Yorkshire [1989] AC 53 (HL)

Facts

• Jacqueline Hill was murdered by a serial killer known as the Yorkshire Ripper.
• The claimant, a relative of Ms. Hill, alleged negligence by the West Yorkshire Police due to investigatory failures, specifically their failure to apprehend the perpetrator despite interviewing him multiple times.
• The negligence claim asserted that the police’s actions directly resulted in Ms. Hill’s death, seeking damages for the loss suffered.
• The case reached the House of Lords, raising the question of whether the police owed a duty of care to the public or to specific individuals in the context of criminal investigations.

Issues

1. Whether the police owed a duty of care to individual members of the public (such as Jacqueline Hill) to protect them from harm by third parties during the course of police investigations.
2. Whether sufficient proximity existed between the police and Ms. Hill to establish such a duty of care.
3. Whether public policy considerations should preclude the imposition of a duty of care on the police in respect of their investigation of crime.

Decision

• The House of Lords held that the police did not owe a duty of care to individual members of the public to apprehend criminals and prevent specific harm caused by third parties.
• The court determined there was insufficient proximity between the police and Ms. Hill to establish a duty of care, as she was at no special risk compared to the general public.
• The House of Lords concluded that, even had proximity been established, public policy considerations would have precluded the imposition of a duty of care, to avoid defensive policing and the diversion of resources.
• The ruling established that the police are generally immune from negligence claims relating to investigatory work resulting in third-party harm.

Legal Principles

• The concept of duty of care in negligence requires proximity and reasonable foreseeability.
• Application of the Anns two-stage test: (1) proximity between claimant and defendant; (2) whether there are public policy reasons to limit or negate that duty.
• Public policy reasons preclude a general duty of care on the police to prevent harm by third parties during investigations; imposing such a duty could result in defensive policing and stifle law enforcement discretion.
• The ruling has been subsequently interpreted and critiqued in later cases such as Osman v UK and Robinson v Chief Constable of West Yorkshire, with recent authority clarifying that police are not subject to blanket immunity but liability should be considered on ordinary negligence principles.

Conclusion

Hill v Chief Constable of West Yorkshire established that the police do not owe a general duty of care to individual members of the public to prevent harm by third parties arising from police investigatory actions. Although this decision provided substantial protection for police operational discretion, later judgments have clarified that immunity is not absolute, and liability should be determined by applying general principles of negligence.