Judgment Analysis of Lord Reed SCJ in Robinson v. Chief Constable of West Yorkshire Police [2018] 2 WLR 595

This case analysis examines the judgment of Lord Reed SCJ in Robinson v. Chief Constable of West Yorkshire Police [2018] 2 WLR 595, focusing on the legal issues involved, the ratio decidendi, and the potential future significance of the case. The case involved a pedestrian who was injured during a police arrest, raising questions about the duty of care owed by police officers to the public. The analysis explores the Supreme Court's decision regarding the police's liability for negligence in operational activities and the implications for future cases involving police negligence.

LL4001
CASE ANALYSIS ASSESSMENT
1

Judgment Analysis of Lord Reed SCJ in Robinson v. Chief
Constable of West Yorkshire Police [2018] 2 WLR 595
2

Contents
Introduction................................................................................................................................2
A summary of the facts pertinent to the decision.......................................................................3
An explanation of the legal issues involved...............................................................................4
The judgment(s).........................................................................................................................5
The ratio decidendi.....................................................................................................................7
Any important obiter dicta.........................................................................................................8
A discussion of the likely future significance, if any, of this case.............................................9
Conclusion................................................................................................................................11
References................................................................................................................................12
3

Introduction
The case pertains to the breach of duty of care towards the public by the police officer while
arresting the accused of drug on the count of fact that if he would not arrest the accused he
will be losing the great opportunity and it is also possible that important evidences are lost for
always. However in those cases in which public interest and the personal interest are involved
the public interest is always given preference as stated in the below discussed judgment.
4

A summary of the facts pertinent to the decision
The case pertains to the liability of the police officers while making the arrest and detention
of the accursed to the pedestrian. There was the general rule that no police officer can be
subjected to any prosecution for anything done by him negligently while performing the
public duty. This case of Robinson v. Chief Constable of West Yorkshire Police [2018] 2
WLR 595 has changed the complete picture of the established general rule and the scope of
the liability of the police officer while discharging their duties have also been extended to
include the right of the general person who suffered the injury to make the prosecution
against the police officers.
In this case the police officers on seeing the drug dealer decided to arrest him however it was
realised by them that they could not arrest him immediately and therefore they called for the
support and organised operational assessment. Before they could have been provided the
support to arrest him. The drug dealer moved from the place and the other officers also ame
for the support and therefore it was realised by the officers that if they will not be arresting
the drug dealer at that point of time they will lose the important opportunity and there are
chances that evidences of important nature are also destructed.
The arrest of drug dealer was planned in the manner that two officers will be approaching
him first from one side and two other officers with arrive in moment so that drug addict could
not escape the arrests. The two first approaching police officers arrested the drug addict and
he resisted the same and this caused the struggle between the police officer and drug addict
and this caused both of them to stretch meters away from the initial point of arrest. Due to
the struggle they fall on the ground and got injured and in the same one pedestrian who was
not connected with the arrest in any manner also got injured in their struggle (VGSO, 2017).
5

An explanation of the legal issues involved.
The legal issues in the case were as to:
1. Whether police officers were negligent in the present case in making the arrest and
detention of the drug addict or not?
2. Whether the police officers are completely exempted from all kinds of liabilities
towards the third person who gets injured while they discharge their official duty/
whether they owes duty of care towards the public or not?
3. Can the police officers be prosecuted for the same and completed through court to
provide adequate relief and medical expenses if any incurred? (Supreme Court UK.,
2017).
6

The judgment(s)
Trial Court:
The trail court made the judgment in the favour of victim and held the police officers to be
negligent in making arrest and detention of the accused of drug dealing. However the fact of
duty of care on the police officer was not accepted by the court and thus the claimant in the
case were not provided adequate relief and thus appeal was chosen as another option to knock
the door of the court of appeal. The Court of Appeal also rejected the claim of the appellant
and stated that if it could have get the chance to consider and overlook the judgment of the
trial court it could have reversed the decision of making the police officers liable for the
negligence in the discharge of their lawful duty (Supreme Court UK., 2016).
Thus the appellant again had to approach to the Supreme Court of the country to seek the
desired relief. The Supreme Court recognised the case to be very important in terms of
deciding the case of negligence on the part of police officers. It stated the importance of the
case in these words that “ if any case includes reference to the case like Donogue v
Stevenson, Hadly V Heller, Ann v Merton etc. Those cases are going to be of importance.”
The court also stated that for determination of the duty of care in particular case there is no
definite and particular test. The Supreme Court stated that there are two kinds of acts one is
positive acts and another is negative acts. In case of positive acts there is no doubt in relation
to imposition of duty of care over police officer. However in relation to negative duties it was
stated by the court that generally public authorities does not owe the duty of care and thereby
to save the third person from any kind of apparent harm (Durbin, 2017).
In relation to operational activities Supreme Court examine the position whether there is duty
of care on police officers for operational activity or there is blanket immunity. It was held by
the court that in no circumstances police had every enjoyed the blanket immunity for all
operational activities. The court also admitted the ruling of the case of Hill V Chief
Constable of West Yorkshire Police, “ police can be liable for the injury in those cases where
it was direct result of the act of police”.
Apart from the acceptance of the interpretation in the above stated case the court also
accepted the fact that police officers are liable for the injuries caused to the pedestrians by the
7

act or conduct of the police officer in relation to arresting in the street if the injury was easily
foreseeable by the police officer as a reasonable man.
Thus the police officers were found to be guilty of not performing the duty carefully. They
were found to have the duty of care towards the pedestrians since they were in such a position
that they should have foreseen the consequences of their decision of arresting the drug addict
in the public street. It was reasonably foreseeable by them that drug addict will definitely be
resulting his arrest and on this basis they owned the duty of care. The court finally decided
that the injuries to the claimant were the direct result of the breach of duty of care by the
officers and it was stated that injury was the result of exposing her to danger while they had
to protect her from being subjected to any kind of injury in the whole process of arrest.
The chief constable was thus held to be liable for the negligence and breach of duty of care
by the Supreme Court.
8

The ratio decidendi
The ratio decidendi of the case focuses mainly on two acts i.e. positive act and as omission.
In the subsequent case the act of arresting the drug addict was positive act and not omission
and therefore the question of presence of duty of carte on the police officer does not arise
here since every positive act carries with it duty of care as well.
The court stated that in case of positive duty there is duty of care as well. In the present case
of Robinson the decision of the arrest by the police officer to arrest drug addict was not
correct since it was clear to them that anyone from the public could get assaulted in such
process and this risk of injury to anyone was found to be sufficient by the court for imposing
the duty of care on the police officers (Arnell, 2018).
In the trial court the officers initially agreed to the fact of risk that accused may escape and
that they had to minimise the risk to the public while arresting the accused and this ground
was found to be sufficient by the supreme court for establishing the fact of negligence on the
part of the police officers in the Robinson case.
The Supreme court also accepted the detailed test approach to undertake the operational
planning and performance of arrest to decide the fact of negligence in the case to case.
9

Any important obiter dicta
From the decision of the case it has been observed that the parties to the case in order to get
the success in getting the order of court in their favour, the below things are to be proved:
 That there was duty of care over the defendant.
 That the defendant though his negligent performance has breached such duty.
 The suffering caused to the claimed is due to the breach of duty by the defendant
only.
 The nature of injury and the loss which is caused to the defendant is recoverable in
nature.
In relation to the question that whether there is duty of care or not the court applied the
decision of the Caparo Industries V Dickman 1990 1 AOL ER 568, in which the focused
was placed on the fact that damage occurred to the plaintiff was foreseeable in advance by the
defendant, the parties to the case i.e. one who caused the loss and other who suffer the loss
has sufficient proximate cause and that it is fair to impose the duty of care on the person at
breach in all reasonable circumstances (Olevson and Miscevic, 2015).
Thus in the present case court observed that the police officer gad the apparent duty of care
towards the plaintiff and that they caused the injury to her while performing their act
negligently and there exist sufficient cause in between the police officer who were arresting
the drug addict in the public place and the pedestrians who was there in the vicinity of such
arresting place. This whole case was used and the observation for the case was made and
Chief constable was held to be liable for the violation of breach of duty of care and
negligence (Supreme Court UK. 2016).
10

A discussion of the likely future significance, if any, of this case
The decision delivered by the Supreme Court in the above stated case is likely to bring more
willingness on the court of it to scrutinise the decision making of operational nature by the
police officers. Before taking the decision of arrest with the no adequate personnel
availability for support, the risk assessment could have been conducted by the chief constable
of the police so that the subsequent case could not have been happened. The place of arrest
was foreseeable to be full of crowd by the police officers and the risk to public in the vicinity
of the arrest point was also clear and this is sufficient to examine the fact that there was duty
of care and the same has been violated by making the wrong decision of proceeding with the
arrest in public place and thereby casing the injury to the pedestrian’s (Wallace and Buja,
2015).
The case decision has widened the scope of liability of the police officer in relation to
positive activities undertaken by it if the same involved the risk to public if any of any kind.
The decision of the case has exerted the pressure over the police officer in relation to
deciding whether to arrest a particular person over the busy street or not, whether he must
wait for the support from his team so that he can mitigate the risk to the public or whether he
must try to destruct the criminal to get out of the public place and then to arrest him. The non
clear application of the test for deciding the test for the existence of duty of care on the part
of police officers will always allow the court to examine the individual case on its own
parameters and this pressure will always tried to be limited by the police officer to make the
decision that is based on the risk assessment and other reasonable grounds (HIF, 2017).
The decision of the case has changed the complete scenario as earlier only on the exceptional
circumstances only the right to make the complaint against the police officers was allowed
and the option of getting the relief was also very less. However with the increasing ti8me the
scene has changed and this apparent case very useful development in establishing the new
streamline of opening the wide scope of getting relief against the arbitrary acts of the police
officers was well and now it is not limited to those exceptional circumstances. The decision
of the court will ensure the due care on the part of police officers in relation to their
observance of duties especially in which the interest of the public is involved. This right to
seek is not made absolute and it also requires the establishment of various facts before the
court to get the desired relief from the court. The test is not mathematical in nature and each
11

case fact and circumstances are the determining factors in relation to the possible decision of
the case (Wordpress.com., 2017).
The duty of care has to be performed by the police officer as it helps in creating more faith in
the justice system. The decision of the court is also useful from the point of view of the
person who are found to be engaged in other negligent case sand observation and decision of
the present case will help the trail court and the appellate court to clearly decide the case
which are before them. All public undertaking will be conscious towards the fulfilment of the
public duty with car and caution (Fedora, 2016).
Thus now police is liable for every consequence that is reasonably foreseeable by them in
relation to likely injury to third party. They have to serve the interest of the public and must
try to reduce the risk to them at minimum level. They are not to be found in the violation of
legal duty of care on the several occasions and they must be very particular about the
performance of duty to serve public interest only.
12

Conclusion
The negligence on the part of public officer whether they are police officer or person engaged
in some other kind of public undertaking is taken very seriously by the courts now a days
with the increasing instances of violation and misuse of the power by the public officers. The
decision of the case in Robinson v. Chief Constable of West Yorkshire Police [2018] 2 WLR
595 is one of the example in which negligence was there on the part of the police officer and
the Supreme court has correctly made them liable and has passed a good decision from the
prospective of interest of public concerned. This decision will be ruling the legal system
further in relation to negligence on the part of public officials.
13

References
Arnell, S. 2018. Robinson v Chief Constable of West Yorkshire Police. Available at:
https://openair.rgu.ac.uk/handle/10059/2942. [Accessed On: 23 July 2018]
Durbin, E., 2017. Torts – Nature of Tort Law and Liability.Available at:
http://www.westlawnextcanada.com/academic/ced/torts. [Accessed on 23 July 2018]
Fedora, S., 2016. Contributory Negligence (or Fasten Your Seatbealt!). Available at:
http://www.dubo.com/contributory-negligence-or-fasten-your-seatbelt/. [Accessed on:
23 July 2018]
HIF 2017. Types of Damages in Civil Litigation. Available at:
http://www.hosseinilaw.com/types-of-damages-in-civil-litigation/. [Accessed on: 23
July 2018]
Olevson, D. J. and Miscevic, B., 2015. Passing the Buck: Risks Willingly Assumed and
Liability Apportionment at Resorts. Available at:
http://mccagueborlack.com/emails/articles/risks-assumed.html. [Accessed on: 23 July
2018]
Supreme Court UK. 2016, Robinson v. Chief Constable of West Yorkshire Police [2018] 2
WLR 595. Available at: https://www.supremecourt.uk/cases/uksc-2016-0082.html [Accessed
On: 23 July 2018]
VGSO 2017, Duty of Care. Available at: vgso.vic.gov.au/sites/default/files/Duty of Care -
Newsletter May... [Accessed On: 23 July 2018]
Wallace, S. D. and Buja, M. F., 2015. Waivers: managing your risk. Dolden Wallacefolick.
Wordpress.com 2017, Robinson v Chief Constable of West Yorkshire Police. Available at:
https://billmaddens.wordpress.com/2018/02/09/robinson-v-chief.... [Accessed On: 23 July
2018]
14