Learner resource 3: Negligence and Justice (answers)***PLEASE NOTE*** this article contains a direct quote from the case which includes a swear word. There are other articles or the law reports itself available on-line if you prefer to use a different version (see for example the A Level Law Review September 2015 pp22-23). This link was chosen as it includes a concise explanation of the facts and the decision. You may wish to print the article from the link above and remove the swear word (it is in the first paragraph).

Q1. Who were the claimants in this case?

Q2. What were the two claims made against the police?

Q3. Which court made the final decision in this case?

Q4. The Supreme Court referred to the case of Hill v Chief Constable of West Yorkshire. Summarise the facts and decision in this case.

Q5. Did the police owe a duty of care to Ms Michael?

Q6. What could happen if it was decided that the police did owe a duty of care to individual victims of crime?

Version 1 1 © OCR 2017Law of Torts

The claimants were the family of Ms Michael who had been murdered by her ex-boyfriend.

The family were suing the police for damages under the law of negligence and Under Article 2 of the European Convention of Human Rights ‘the right to life’.

The Supreme Court

Hill claimed that the police were negligent in their investigation of the Yorkshire Ripper. She claimed that if the police has done their job properly, her daughter would not have been murdered by the Ripper. The court decided that the police did not owe a duty of care to the family of a victim of crime.

The court said the police did not owe a duty of care to individual members of the public.

The courts would be flooded with claims for compensation (floodgates argument).

Q7. How are victims of crime compensated?

Q8. Lord Toulson thought that the claim against the police should not be allowed as the tax payer would be burdened twice if the family received compensation from the police and the criminal compensation scheme. What does he mean?

Q9. Two of the Supreme Court judges dissented. What is a dissenting judgment?

Q10. Which do you agree with, the majority or the minority?

Extension activityThe decision in this case and wider issues relating to liability of the police could form the basis of a class discussion with members of the class taking on the roles of specific judges from the case.

Version 1 2 © OCR 2017Law of Torts

Both the police and criminal compensation scheme are publicly funded so if the family have already been given compensation from the criminal compensation scheme, it would also be the tax payer who would foot the bill for the claim against the police.

A dissenting judgment goes against the majority ruling. Lord Kerr and Lady Hale both thought that the police were responsible in this case, however, the decision of the majority of the court was that the police were not responsible.

Discussion.

There is a public funded criminal compensation scheme (victim support) that compensates the victims of crime.