Robinson v Chief Constable of West Yorkshire Police [2018] UKSC 4

Facts

• Mrs. Robinson, an elderly pedestrian, was injured when two police officers attempting to arrest a suspected drug dealer knocked her over, causing physical injury.
• She brought a negligence claim against the Chief Constable of West Yorkshire Police, alleging that the officers owed her a duty of care and had breached it by their conduct during the arrest.
• The police argued they should be immune from civil liability for their actions undertaken in the course of investigation and crime prevention, citing public policy grounds.
• The dispute centered on whether the police owed a duty of care to Mrs. Robinson and whether they could rely on special immunity when their affirmative actions had directly caused harm.

Issues

1. Whether police officers owe a duty of care to members of the public for harm caused by positive acts in the execution of their duties.
2. Whether public authorities, specifically the police, are entitled to special immunity from negligence claims based on public policy.
3. What the proper approach is to determining whether a duty of care arises in novel situations or in the context of public bodies, especially regarding the distinction between acts and omissions.

Decision

• The Supreme Court rejected the argument that police are entitled to special immunity from liability in negligence for actions performed during crime prevention or investigation.
• The Court held that liability should be determined according to the ordinary principles of the law of negligence, without special rules for public authorities.
• The Court found that, since the police officers had positively caused physical harm to Mrs. Robinson through their actions, a duty of care existed and was breached.
• The "policy/operation" distinction and rules against police negligence liability from cases like X v Bedfordshire CC and the Anns test were expressly rejected.
• Dissenting opinions by Lord Mance and Lord Hughes recognized a possible role for policy considerations, but the majority held these do not justify blanket immunities for public authorities.

Legal Principles

• Ordinary negligence principles apply to public authorities in the same way as to private individuals, including where their positive acts cause harm.
• There is no general public policy-based immunity for the police (or other authorities) from negligence claims.
• The incremental approach endorsed in Caparo v Dickman guides the development of the law regarding duty of care, emphasizing the use of precedent and analogical reasoning rather than broad tests like Anns.
• The general rule regarding omissions remains: there is usually no duty to prevent harm caused by third parties unless an established exception, such as assumption of responsibility, applies. This applies equally to public authorities.
• Policy considerations may play a role in court reasoning where the law is uncertain, but do not displace established negligence principles or justify special rules for public bodies.

Conclusion

Robinson v Chief Constable of West Yorkshire Police clarified that public authorities, including the police, are subject to ordinary negligence principles for harm caused by their positive acts, with no special immunity grounded in public policy, reinforcing an incremental approach to the duty of care and confirming the rejection of broad, policy-based exceptions.