Alcock v Chief Constable of South Yorkshire Police (Jones v Wright)

A duty to avoid shock-induced psychiatric injury to a secondary victim requires reasonable foreseeability and sufficient proximity. Relevant controls concern the claimant’s relationship with the person endangered, proximity to the accident in time and space, and the means of perception. Claims are not confined to particular family relationships, but close ties of love and affection must be established or appropriately presumed.

The injury must result from sudden perception of the event or its immediate aftermath. Mere communication of distressing news, ordinary grief and accumulated anxiety do not suffice. Television coverage which shows no suffering of recognisable individuals does not ordinarily provide the required direct perception. The immediate aftermath depends on the circumstances; substantially later mortuary visits for identification may fall outside it.

The South Yorkshire police were responsible for crowd control at a football match at Hillsborough Stadium. Their admission of excessive numbers into enclosed terraces caused a crush in which 95 people died and more than 400 suffered physical injury. The Chief Constable admitted negligence in respect of those deaths and injuries.

Sixteen claimants, comprising relatives and a fiancée of spectators, sought damages for psychiatric illness. Some witnessed the disaster from another part of the stadium. Others watched television, heard reports or subsequently identified bodies. Psychiatric illness and causation were assumed for determining whether the Chief Constable owed them a duty of care.

Hidden J found for ten claimants and against six. The Court of Appeal allowed the Chief Constable’s appeals concerning nine successful claimants and dismissed the six unsuccessful claimants’ appeals. Ten claimants brought the consolidated appeals addressed in the supplied House of Lords judgment. The central question was whether foreseeable psychiatric injury was sufficient to establish a duty, or whether additional requirements of relationship, proximity and direct perception restricted recovery.

1. The House of Lords unanimously dismissed the appeals. Lord Keith of Kinkel, Lord Ackner, Lord Oliver of Aylmerton and Lord Jauncey of Tullichettle delivered substantive speeches. Lord Lowry concurred in the conclusion without adding reasoning.

2. Per Lord Keith, Lord Ackner, Lord Oliver and Lord Jauncey, reasonable foreseeability of psychiatric illness alone did not establish a duty to a secondary victim. A sufficiently proximate relationship with the defendant was also required. The relevant controls concerned the class of claimant, proximity to the accident in time and space, and the means by which the shock was caused. The proximity requirements discussed in McLoughlin v. O'Brian were applied.

3. Per those four Lords, eligible claimants were not confined to spouses, parents and children. Other relatives or friends could qualify upon proof of comparably close ties of love and affection. The necessary affection could be presumed in appropriate close relationships, subject to rebuttal. Lord Keith also presumed it between the engaged couple concerned. The two claimants present at the stadium had established no sufficiently close affectionate relationship with their deceased brothers or brother-in-law.

4. Per Lord Keith, Lord Ackner and Lord Oliver, compensable psychiatric injury had to arise from shock associated with direct perception of the event or its immediate aftermath. Mere knowledge of a death, grief, prolonged anxiety and the strain of caring for an injured person did not satisfy that requirement. Lord Ackner described shock as sudden appreciation through sight or sound of a horrifying event which violently agitated the mind.

5. Per Lord Ackner and Lord Jauncey, the mortuary identifications occurred too late to constitute the immediate aftermath. Lord Jauncey emphasised both their timing and their purpose of identification rather than rescue or comfort. The immediate aftermath could not usefully be given a comprehensive definition.

6. Per Lord Keith, Lord Ackner, Lord Oliver and Lord Jauncey, the television broadcasts provided insufficient proximity. They showed no suffering of recognisable individuals and produced anxiety rather than direct perception of a relative’s fate. The defendant could anticipate compliance with broadcasting standards. Lord Ackner and Lord Oliver nevertheless reserved the possibility that an exceptional simultaneous broadcast could provide an equivalent to direct perception; Lord Jauncey expressed no view on that possibility.

7. Lord Keith, Lord Ackner and Lord Oliver did not categorically exclude an exceptionally horrifying event from founding a bystander’s claim. Lord Oliver distinguished participants and rescuers from uninvolved witnesses. Lord Keith, Lord Ackner and Lord Oliver seriously doubted Hevican v. Ruane, [1991] 3 All E.R. 65, and Ravenscroft v. Rederiaktiebølaget Transatlantic, [1991] 3 All E.R. 73, because their effective basis appeared to be news of a son’s death.

The Court of Appeal’s orders were affirmed, subject to variation of the costs orders affecting legally aided appellants.

The key information specifies the Court of Appeal, but the supplied judgment contains the House of Lords’ determination. The specified case metadata has been retained.

• House of Lords: On 28 November 1991, unanimously dismissed the ten claimants’ consolidated appeals and affirmed the Court of Appeal’s orders, subject to variation concerning legally aided appellants’ costs. The supplied text identifies this decision as [1991] UKHL 5 .
• Court of Appeal: On 3 May 1991, Parker, Stocker and Nolan L.JJ. allowed the Chief Constable’s appeals concerning nine successful claimants and dismissed the appeals of six unsuccessful claimants.
• High Court: Hidden J gave judgment on 31 July 1990 concerning the existence of a duty of care. He found for ten of sixteen claimants and against six, assuming causation and leaving its determination to further proceedings if necessary.