header-logo header-logo

27 February 2026 / Charles Davey
Issue: 8151 / Categories: Features , Criminal
printer mail-detail

Call of duty? Pt 2

243393
Withholding information as to a serious crime was once part of our common law: should it be again? Charles Davey sets out the case
  • After Woodcock confirmed there is no general duty to warn potential victims, the article asks whether the criminal law should impose a positive duty to report serious crimes.
  • It argues that, given the former common law offence of misprision and modern examples in other jurisdictions, a duty to report serious crime should be reintroduced.

The first article in this series considered the decision in Chief Constable of Northamptonshire Police v Woodcock [2025] EWCA Civ 13 that the police are under no duty of care to warn domestic abuse victims of an imminent attack (‘Call of duty?’, 175 NLJ 8125, pp13-14). A simple telephone call would have saved Ms Woodcock from a ferocious and nearly fatal knife attack. The Supreme Court has refused permission to appeal.

As matters currently stand, there is no tortious duty on individuals or public authorities to warn of another’s

If you are not a subscriber, subscribe now to read this content
If you are already a subscriber sign in
...or Register for two weeks' free access to subscriber content

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Bell Yard Kysen—Liz Giles

Bell Yard Kysen—Liz Giles

Bell Yard Kysen appoints senior legal PR and ex-government communications adviser, Liz Giles

Clarke Willmott—Lee Edwards

Clarke Willmott—Lee Edwards

Clarke Willmott boosts Southampton commercial property team with addition of partner Lee Edwards

Lime Solicitors—four promotions

Lime Solicitors—four promotions

Lime Solicitors announces four promotions

NEWS
The Attorney General, Ellie Reeves KC MP, and Solicitor General, Andy Slaughter KC MP, marked the 25th anniversary of Pro Bono Week by joining lawyers, charities, students and parliamentarians at events celebrating voluntary legal work
A polished legal defence may owe more to artificial intelligence than legal merit—and creditors risk paying the price in delay and expense
Witness evidence can be compromised by AI before a solicitor sees the draft, leaving safeguards focused on authorship incomplete
Should a conviction stand when a later ruling reveals that the law underpinning it was wrong? The answer exposes a clash between finality and justice
Possession claims are entering a new digital era, with procedural traps awaiting practitioners who assume familiar rules still govern every step
back-to-top-scroll