Smith v Chief Constable Sussex Police

House of Lords

Basic Facts: C reported threats and evidence to the police. The police did not take adequate action, and C was later attacked by the former partner.

Issue for the Court: Does the police owe a duty of care to individuals who report specific and imminent threats?

Held: The High Court struck out the case in favour of the police. The Court of Appeal reversed the decision and the police appealed. The House of Lords held in favour of the police: no duty of care was owed by the police. The court came to the conclusion that the case fell squarely within the principle established in Hill v Chief Constable of West Yorkshire [1988] (i.e. there was insufficient proximity between the police and the victim).

• Lord Bingham:

• Police have a duty to take reasonable steps when credible evidence of a specific and imminent threat is provided.

• Public policy should support holding police accountable for reasonable performance of their duties without inducing defensive behavior.

• Lord Hope:

• Public policy considerations caution against imposing a duty of care due to potential negative effects on police operations.

• A general duty should be assessed based on the credibility and imminence of the threat.

• Lord Phillips:

• The principle that the police owe no duty of care to protect individuals against harm from criminals may accommodate exceptions for specific and imminent threats.

• Lord Carswell:

• Imposing a duty of care might lead to defensive policing.

• There may be exceptional cases where liability is appropriate.

💡 Levelup : The case serves as an important exploration of the scope of the duty of care owed by the police to individuals. It establishes that in situations where specific, credible threats are made known to the police, they may owe a duty to take reasonable steps to prevent harm.