Commissioner of Police for the Metropolis v Reilly

The police generally owe no common-law duty of care to members of the public in relation to the investigation or prevention of crime. That principle is properly expressed as absence of a duty, rather than blanket immunity, and is subject to exceptional cases. Proximity may arise where a person has made specific complaints, identified a suspected criminal and sought protection. Such proximity does not necessarily overcome public-policy considerations, but it may make the issue appropriate for trial. On a strike-out application, the court should not determine summarily that public policy must defeat an arguable case based on proximity. The claim may proceed where the pleaded facts, if proved, could establish an exception, even though success at trial remains unlikely.

Caroline Reilly brought negligence proceedings against the Commissioner of Police for the Metropolis, alleging that the police failed to respond adequately to repeated complaints about harassment and criminal conduct by Peter Webb. The Central London County Court struck out most of the claims but refused to strike out paragraphs 1 to 29 of Particulars of Claim A.

The Commissioner appealed, contending that the claim was barred by the general principle in Hill v Chief Constable of West Yorkshire and Brooks v Commissioner of Police for the Metropolis. The issue was whether the pleaded complaints and requests for protection created an arguable proximity sufficient to justify a trial despite the public-policy considerations governing police liability.

1. Appeal dismissed. The refusal to strike out paragraphs 1 to 29 of Particulars of Claim A was upheld.
2. The general principle in Hill v Chief Constable of West Yorkshire, as reformulated in Brooks v Commissioner of Police for the Metropolis, is that the police ordinarily owe no duty of care to members of the public concerning the apprehension of criminals or detection of crime. It is not a blanket immunity from suit.
3. The principle is subject to exceptional cases. A duty may be arguable where the police have assumed responsibility, or where the claimant has a greater degree of proximity than an unidentified member of the public. Examples may include specific undertakings concerning witness protection or informants. Proximity does not necessarily defeat the public-policy argument, but it may justify a trial of the issue.
4. The claimant had allegedly made repeated complaints, identified the person said to be committing criminal acts and sought protection. If proved, those facts could establish sufficient proximity. The court should not decide on a summary application that public policy must necessarily defeat that argument.
5. The cases concerning threats to life, including Van Colle v Chief Constable of the Hertfordshire Police and Smith v Chief Constable of Sussex, supported allowing the issue to proceed, although the present case did not engage article 2 and article 8 added little assistance.
6. The likely result at trial was judgment for the defendant. Nevertheless, the competing issues of proximity, public policy and the alleged risk of harm required mature consideration on the facts at trial.

• Central London County Court: His Honour Judge Collins struck out the whole of Particulars of Claim B and most of Particulars of Claim A, but refused to strike out paragraphs 1 to 29 of Particulars of Claim A.
• High Court (Queen's Bench Division): The Commissioner’s appeal against that refusal was dismissed. The surviving claim was permitted to proceed to trial.