Calveley v Chief Constable of Merseyside Police [1989] 1 AC 1228

Court: House of Lords

Facts: Police officers employed by Merseyside Police faced complaints from the public, leading to disciplinary proceedings that extended nearly three years, during which some officers were unaware of the complaints for significant periods. In the related cases Worrall v Chief Constable of Merseyside and Park v Chief Constable of Merseyside, one officer was not prosecuted, another was acquitted, and a third was initially dismissed but had the dismissal overturned due to prejudice from the delay. The officers claimed damages for economic and psychiatric harm, alleging negligence and breach of duty under the Police (Discipline) Regulations 1977.

Issue: Whether a breach of statutory duty existed under the Police (Discipline) Regulations 1977 and whether the police owed a common law duty of care in negligence to suspects regarding timely and reasonable conduct of investigations.

Held: The House of Lords ruled in favor of the defendant, determining that no action existed for breach of statutory duty under the Police (Discipline) Regulations 1977, as the purpose of this duty was to protect officers from prejudice, not to cover economic or psychiatric harm. The proper recourse for prejudice due to delay was judicial review of the decision to continue proceedings. Furthermore, the House of Lords concluded that the police do not owe a common law duty of care in negligence to suspects that requires conducting investigations in a timely or reasonable manner. This was based on two main reasons: economic and psychiatric losses were not foreseeable outcomes of negligent investigations, and imposing such a duty would be contrary to public policy by potentially obstructing effective police work.

Key Judicial Statement: The ruling established that the Police (Discipline) Regulations 1977 did not support a claim for statutory breach in relation to economic or psychiatric harm, and there was no common law duty of care owed by the police to suspects for timely and reasonable investigations. The decision emphasized that judicial review was the appropriate remedy for addressing issues arising from delays in disciplinary proceedings and that imposing a common law duty could hinder police efficiency and effectiveness.

💡Leveluplaw: The case confirmed that the Police (Discipline) Regulations 1977 do not create a cause of action for damages related to economic or psychiatric harm due to delays in disciplinary proceedings. Additionally, the ruling clarified that the police do not owe a common law duty of care to suspects concerning the timeliness or reasonableness of investigations, emphasizing the importance of maintaining police effectiveness and public policy considerations.