Robinson & Anor v Northumbria Police Authority & Anor

Negligence in failing to protect employees from a known operational risk must be assessed by reference to the information and circumstances existing when the precaution should have been taken. Repeated missile attacks on police patrol cars made it necessary to investigate not only flying glass but also the possibility that a windscreen might be penetrated. Compliance with standards applicable to ordinary road vehicles did not determine the issue where patrol vehicles faced greater risks. Later technical problems, reduced risk or abandonment of a precaution cannot retrospectively establish that an earlier failure was reasonable. The decision imposed no continuing requirement to use strengthened windscreens: present risks, feasibility and consequential dangers must be assessed at the relevant time.

The claimants were police constables injured when a half-brick thrown by youths penetrated the windscreen of their marked patrol car during a pursuit. One claimant suffered severe head injuries and the other suffered post-traumatic stress disorder.

The Recorder, sitting as a Deputy High Court Judge, found that the police force should have investigated the risk and installed protective windscreens by about mid-1992. The respondents appealed, arguing that penetration had not previously occurred, that the existing windscreens complied with applicable standards, and that later experience showed strengthened windscreens to be unsuitable. The central issues were whether breach and causation had to be assessed on the information available before the accident and whether subsequent events could justify the earlier omission.

The appeal was dismissed unanimously. Lord Justice Pill delivered the leading judgment, with Lord Justice Jonathan Parker and Mr Justice Steele agreeing.

1. The police force owed a duty to take reasonable measures in light of the risks faced by officers operating patrol vehicles. Compliance with the British Standard applicable to ordinary road vehicles did not resolve the issue because police vehicles could face a greater risk of peril.
2. The history of numerous missile attacks made it necessary to consider the possibility of windscreen rupture, rather than limiting the risk to flying glass. Reasonable enquiries would have included expert testing of the kind commissioned immediately after the accident. On the available information, such testing should have been undertaken by spring or summer 1991, and the failure to take the resulting precaution amounted to negligence.
3. On the balance of probabilities, had the risk been appreciated, the force would have installed strengthened windscreens before the accident. The court rejected the argument that the later response was caused only by the emotional impact of the accident.
4. Subsequent events could not be relied upon to establish that the earlier decision was reasonable. Later technical difficulties, visibility and demisting problems, the diminished threat from missiles, and the eventual abandonment of strengthened windscreens had to be assessed separately from the circumstances existing in 1991–1993. Hindsight could not assist either claimant or defendant in determining the earlier breach.
5. The judgment did not direct police authorities to use strengthened windscreens in 2001 or thereafter. The appropriate precaution remained a fact-sensitive question depending on the risks, technical issues and consequential dangers prevailing at the relevant time.

The respondents were ordered to pay the costs of the appeal, subject to detailed assessment if not agreed. Leave to appeal was refused.

• Court of Appeal (Civil Division): In [2001] EWCA Civ 1556, the appeal from the Recorder’s decision was dismissed. Costs were awarded to the respondents and leave to appeal was refused.
• High Court, sitting at Newcastle upon Tyne: The Recorder, Mr Sean Spencer Q.C., sitting as a Deputy High Court Judge, found the respondents liable in negligence after determining the issue of liability on 14 November 2000.