tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6110794854146484721.post5774273036993941670..comments2024-03-14T12:51:39.412+00:00Comments on Law and Lawyers: A brief look at Michael v Chief Constable of South Wales Police and the IPCC ReportObiterJhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04544226917595022902noreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6110794854146484721.post-22797849697935638082015-01-30T11:19:37.576+00:002015-01-30T11:19:37.576+00:00Police have a duty to the public at large to prese...Police have a duty to the public at large to preserve the peace - (paras. 33 and 29 of the judgment refer). Also a duty to prevent crime and protect property from criminal injury - para. 32. It is correct to say that it does not follow from this that an individual is entitled to sue in negligence. Thus, in Hill v Chief Constable of West Yorkshire, it was held that the Police were not liable even though there were errors in the investigation. That made good practical sense and whilst women in the area were at risk from the "Yorkshire Ripper" it was not possible to identify particular possible victims. In Joanna Michael's case, the victim was clearly identified and there were serious lapses by the call-handler. Also, as appears from the IPCC report, the call handler was not trained in relation to domestic violence issues. I remain with the minority in saying that, in those circumstances, a duty of care to Ms Michael ought to have been owed. Had that been the decision of the court then the negligence action could have proceeded to trial and it would have been for the trial judge to determine whether the duty was breached on the facts of the case.<br /><br />It remains to be seen how the Article 2 claim proceeds. However, the Supreme Court was not persuaded that the common law on negligence ought to correspond with the Article 2 duty. The purpose of the Art 2 claim is to uphold human rights rather to offer compensation.ObiterJhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04544226917595022902noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6110794854146484721.post-52008893372251067932015-01-30T00:30:44.860+00:002015-01-30T00:30:44.860+00:00Every duty is owed by someone to someone.
It doe...Every duty is owed by someone to someone. <br /><br />It does not follow, that because the police have a duty to prevent crime, that the duty is owed to the victim, or that the victim is therefore due compensation for negligence of the duty. The duty is owed to the crown, or, if you don't like that, to the whole body of citizens.<br /><br />We all have a duty to prevent crime. If I see a burglar robbing my neighbour's house, and am afraid to confront him, I have failed my duty, and I will be ashamed. But I don't owe damages to my neighbour, for the duty was not owed to my neighbour but to justice itself. We should all do our best. If our best is not good enough, we ought to be ashamed. But it doesn't follow that we should be liable at law.<br /><br />This blog has regularly rejected the idea that justice belongs to the victim. If you believe that you ought to reject this rubbish too.<br /><br /><br /><br /> Bennoreply@blogger.com