header-logo header-logo

To protect & to serve

23 May 2019 / Alec Samuels
Issue: 7841 / Categories: Features , Criminal
printer mail-detail
Alec Samuels reflects on the particular duty of the police to protect us
  • The criminal has caused serious injury or death to the victim. Has the victim or the family of the victim any remedy?

The victim rings 999 and calls for help. The police go to the victim’s house. Too late. The criminal has caused serious injury or death to the victim. Has the victim or the family of the victim any remedy?

The police are under a general duty to protect the public, but it is not a particular duty to each and every one of us individually. The victims of Peter Sutcliffe, the Yorkshire Ripper, had no remedy against the police for failing to protect them from death or injury: Hill v Chief Constable of West Yorkshire [1989] AC 53. The victim would need to show some sort of acceptance of responsibility for protection in the particular case, a special promise of protection upon which the victim relied. Basically the victim must prove that the police

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

FOIL—Bridget Tatham

FOIL—Bridget Tatham

Forum of Insurance Lawyers elects president for 2026

Gibson Dunn—Robbie Sinclair

Gibson Dunn—Robbie Sinclair

Partner joinslabour and employment practice in London

Muckle LLP—Ella Johnson

Muckle LLP—Ella Johnson

Real estate dispute resolution team welcomes newly qualified solicitor

NEWS
Cryptocurrency is reshaping financial remedy cases, warns Robert Webster of Maguire Family Law in NLJ this week. Digital assets—concealable, volatile and hard to trace—are fuelling suspicions of hidden wealth, yet Form E still lacks a section for crypto-disclosure
NLJ columnist Stephen Gold surveys a flurry of procedural reforms in his latest 'Civil way' column
Paper cyber-incident plans are useless once ransomware strikes, argues Jack Morris of Epiq in NLJ this week
In this week's NLJ, Robert Hargreaves and Lily Johnston of York St John University examine the Employment Rights Bill 2024–25, which abolishes the two-year qualifying period for unfair-dismissal claims
Writing in NLJ this week, Manvir Kaur Grewal of Corker Binning analyses the collapse of R v Óg Ó hAnnaidh, where a terrorism charge failed because prosecutors lacked statutory consent. The case, she argues, highlights how procedural safeguards—time limits, consent requirements and institutional checks—define lawful state power
back-to-top-scroll