header-logo header-logo

Home Login E-newsletter About us
08 June 2018 / Dijen Basu KC
Issue: 7796 / Categories: Features , Public , Human rights
printer mail-detail

Civil actions against the police

© Copyright LexisNexis 2026. All Rights Reserved.
nlj_7796_basu

Dijen Basu QC looks at the broadening scope of claims against the police

  • The scope of claims which may be brought against police has widened.
  • The Supreme Court has clarified the duty of care owed by police for positive acts in operational situations.

Time was when it was considered by practitioners that, for reasons of public policy, save in exceptional circumstances, the police owed no duty of care to victims, witnesses or others in relation to operational policing, so that claims could not be brought for damages for ‘operational negligence’ (see, eg Hill v Chief Constable of West Yorkshire [1989] AC 53, (a claim brought by the mother of a victim of the ‘Yorkshire Ripper’ who would not have been murdered, had he been apprehended sooner) and Brooks v Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis [2005] 1 WLR 1495, (a claim brought by Duwayne Brooks, the teenager with Stephen Lawrence when he was murdered 25 years ago)).

The European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) (and the Human Rights

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
Carey Olsen—Patrick Ormond

Carey Olsen—Patrick Ormond

Partner joinscorporate and finance practice in British Virgin Islands

Dawson Cornwell—Naomi Angell

Dawson Cornwell—Naomi Angell

Firm strengthens children department with adoption and surrogacy expert

Penningtons Manches Cooper—Graham Green

Penningtons Manches Cooper—Graham Green

Media and technology expert joins employment team as partner in Cambridge

NEWS
Read All
NLJ this week: Divorce ‘nuclear weapon’ freezes assets but entangles outsiders
Freezing orders in divorce proceedings can unexpectedly ensnare third parties and disrupt businesses. In NLJ this week, Lucy James of Trowers & Hamlins explains how these orders—dubbed a ‘nuclear weapon’—preserve assets but can extend far beyond spouses to companies and business partners 
NLJ this week: What counts as ‘rent’? Court says labour alone won’t do
A Court of Appeal ruling has clarified that ‘rent’ must be monetary—excluding tenants paid in labour from statutory protection. In this week's NLJ, James Naylor explains Garraway v Phillips, where a tenant worked two days a week instead of paying rent
Your magistrates’ court needs you!
Thousands more magistrates are to be recruited, under a major shake-up to speed up and expand the hiring process
NLJ this week: Freed but failed—justice system leaves the innocent empty-handed
Three men wrongly imprisoned for a combined 77 years have been released—yet received ‘not a penny’ in compensation, exposing deep flaws in the justice system. Writing in NLJ this week, Dr Jon Robins reports on Justin Plummer, Oliver Campbell and Peter Sullivan, whose convictions collapsed amid discredited forensics, ‘oppressive’ police interviews and unreliable ‘cell confessions’
NLJ this week: Clarity on whistleblowing, settlements and tribunal limits
A quiet month for employment cases still delivers key legal clarifications. In his latest Employment Law Brief for NLJ, Ian Smith reports that whistleblowing protection remains intact even where disclosures are partly self-serving, provided the worker reasonably believes they serve the ‘public interest’ 
Copyright © 2026 LexisNexis
back-to-top-scroll