Volume 1 issue 2 October 2013

Police Liability for Negligent Investigations: Unravelling the Blanket of Immunity

Zoha Jamil
The current law in England and Wales on police negligent liability is highly restrictive. Following the House of Lords decision in Hill v Chief Constable of West Yorkshire, ‘de facto’ immunity from prosecution continues to be the default position where claimants bring an action against the police for their negligence in the investigation or suppression of a crime. Despite the introduction of the Human Rights Act 1998, public policy justifications form the core rationale, which serves to reject negligence claims against the police. The fact that the courts apply an extremely narrow interpretation of the ‘obligation to investigate’ under the European Convention on Human Rights makes successful claims against police negligence for the violation of human rights unlikely.

This paper will critically analyse the test developed in Hill and evaluate whether the current law on police negligence is an adequate means of justice. It will consider the existence and scope of a police officer’s duty of care in line with the Human Rights Act 1998, and reassess the policy grounds underlying the decisions. In doing so this paper will argue that the principle developed in Hill is in dire need for reform. Whilst public policy justifications form a backbone in the law of negligence, and cannot be entirely disregarded, this paper will argue that courts need to formulate a broader test that can determine the scope of a police officer’s duty to investigate in line with the European Convention on Human Rights.