header-logo header-logo

Home Login E-newsletter About us

Chief constables: in the dock

© Copyright LexisNexis 2026. All Rights Reserved.
23 January 2026 / Neil Parpworth
Issue: 8146 / Categories: Features , Liability , Tort , Public , Contempt , Rule of law
printer mail-detail
240524
Are chief constables vicariously liable for the actions of their officers & staff? Neil Parpworth examines the case law
  • In Buzzard-Quashie v Chief Constable of Northamptonshire Police, the issue arose as to whether or not a chief constable can be vicariously liable for contempt.
  • In light of the Court of Appeal’s decision, such liability covers a situation where a police force has failed to comply with a court order.
  • The court imposed a fine on the chief constable to be provided out of the force’s existing budget.

Section 2(1) of the Police Reform and Social Responsibility Act 2011 provides that each police force is to have a chief constable, and by virtue of s 2(3), a police force and its associated civilian staff are under their direction and control. Until the Police Act 1964, torts committed by police officers were not actionable as against chief constables. Rather, a claimant was required to seek redress against the individual officer concerned.

For the past

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

Read All
Sponsored by
Muckle LLP—Stacey Brown

Muckle LLP—Stacey Brown

Corporate governance and company law specialist joins the team

Excello Law—Heather Horsewood & Darren Barwick

Excello Law—Heather Horsewood & Darren Barwick

North west team expands with senior private client and property hires

Ward Hadaway—Paul Wigham

Ward Hadaway—Paul Wigham

Firm boosts corporate team in Newcastle to support high-growth technology businesses

NEWS
Read All
NLJ this week: Police, contempt and the rule of law
Can a chief constable be held responsible for disobedient officers? Writing in NLJ this week, Neil Parpworth, professor of public law at De Montfort University, examines a Court of Appeal ruling that answers firmly: yes
NLJ this week: When your brain signs the contract
Neurotechnology is poised to transform contract law—and unsettle it. Writing in NLJ this week, Harry Lambert, barrister at Outer Temple Chambers and founder of the Centre for Neurotechnology & Law, and Dr Michelle Sharpe, barrister at the Victorian Bar, explore how brain–computer interfaces could both prove and undermine consent
NLJ this week: Comparators—how close is close enough?
Comparators remain the fault line of discrimination law. In this week's NLJ, Anjali Malik, partner at Bellevue Law, and Mukhtiar Singh, barrister at Doughty Street Chambers, review a bumper year of appellate guidance clarifying how tribunals should approach ‘actual’ and ‘evidential’ comparators. A new six-stage framework stresses a simple starting point: identify the treatment first
NLJ this week: Domicile—more than where you live
In cross-border divorces, domicile can decide everything. In NLJ this week, Jennifer Headon, legal director and head of international family, Isobel Inkley, solicitor, and Fiona Collins, trainee solicitor, all at Birketts LLP, unpack a Court of Appeal ruling that re-centres nuance in jurisdiction disputes. The court held that once a domicile of choice is established, the burden lies on the party asserting its loss
NLJ this week: Arbitration’s fast lane—with guardrails
Early determination is no longer a novelty in arbitration. In NLJ this week, Gustavo Moser, arbitration specialist lawyer at Lexis+, charts the global embrace of summary disposal powers, now embedded in the Arbitration Act 1996 and mirrored worldwide. Tribunals may swiftly dismiss claims with ‘no real prospect of succeeding’, but only if fairness is preserved
Copyright © 2026 LexisNexis
back-to-top-scroll