Background
- Ms. Woodcock was attacked outside her home by her former partner, RG and sustained serious injuries. RG was subsequently convicted of her attempted murder.
- RG had allegedly previously made threats against Ms Woodcock and her family and had allegedly assaulted her and her former husband. RG had been arrested, given harassment warnings and had breached bail conditions imposed on him.
- On the day prior to her attack, Ms Woodcock reported to the police that RG had threatened to kill her and everyone in her household if he was sent to prison, that a CCTV camera had recorded him jumping over her fence and that he had kicked her front door. The police attended twice but RG had already left.
- Ms. Woodcock was given advice by officers including to go into a locked room and call 999 if RG came to the house, have family or friends stay overnight, and inform her neighbours. She requested officers remain outside her home, and an officer was present until about 3am. Police officers unsuccessfully tried to trace and arrest RG.
- At 07:32 am, a neighbour called 999, reporting that RG was loitering outside Ms. Woodcock's house and likely to attack her when she left for work around 07:45 am. The neighbour mentioned they had tried to call Ms. Woodcock but did not have her new number and she didn't want to get involved. The call handler assured the neighbour that officers would be sent immediately.
- Officers were immediately sent to arrest RG. The police did not inform Ms. Woodcock of the neighbour's information or that an officer was attending. Ms. Woodcock left the house and RG attacked her as she was about to get into her car. An officer arrived at 07:46 am, one minute after Ms. Woodcock's daughter called 999 to report the attack.
Appeal to High Court
Ritchie J overturned the trial judge's decision on the Claimant's appeal to the High Court, holding that the police owed a duty of care to the Claimant and breached that duty by failing to telephone the Claimant to warn her. The judge remitted the case for evidence of causation.
The Claimant had not said in evidence that she would not have left the house had she known RG was outside. Ritchie J found on the facts that there was an assumption of responsibility on the part of the police and this was a special or exceptional case where a duty of care should arise. Ritchie J distinguished previous case law on the basis that that case law concerned a duty to protect whereas this was a duty to warn case.
Court of Appeal decision
The Court of Appeal allowed the Chief Constable’s appeal holding no duty of care was owed and they did not consider this was a novel case or that there was any scope for the finding of exceptional circumstances such as to justify imposing a duty. It was held that existing case law made it 'impossible to find that the police were under a narrow and a specific duty to warn Ms Woodcock'.
The Court of Appeal rejected that a submission that on the facts of the case the police had a special level of control over the danger. There was no assumption of responsibility as the police had not promised to do anything. The Court said that usually before there would be an assumption of responsibility there had to be a promise which generally had to be relied upon.
In relation to the neighbour’s telephone call, it was accepted that preventing another person from protecting another is a form of making matters worse for the victim. However, to establish liability there had to be evidence both that the police knew or ought to have known that the other person intended to act protectively and that the other person was deflected from doing so by the conduct of the police. There was no evidence of either.
Comment
Liability of police forces in the tort of negligence to pay compensation for personal injury is governed by the same principles that apply to private individuals (see e.g. Michael v Chief Constable of South Wales Police (2015) AC 1732 and Robinson v Chief Constable of West Yorkshire Police (2018) AC 736.).
There is a distinction between acts (making matters worse/harming) and omissions (failing to confer a benefit/protecting from harm).
In protection from harm cases, the Claimant must establish an exemption. Lord Reed in Robinson cited an article by Tofaris and Steel Liability for omissions by the police (2016) 75 CLJ 128 which listed the exemptions as (i) where A has assumed a responsibility to protect B from the danger (ii) A has done something which prevents another protecting B from the danger (iii) A has a special level of control over the source of the danger (iv) A’s status creates an obligation to protect from the danger.
The Court was unable to distinguish this case from the Supreme Court's decision in Michael. It found this was a 'clear' omissions case, with none of the exemptions applying and that the police did not make matters worse (para 127).
It should be noted that Ms Woodcock had brought her claim in negligence only. There was not a separate claim under the Human Rights Act 1998 alleging a breach of any protective duty arising under Articles 2 or 3 of ECHR.
DWF acted on behalf of the successful Appellant, the Chief Constable of Northamptonshire Police.
Written by Keiron Walsh
