Chief Constable of West Yorkshire Police v Hunter

In assessing negligence in a realistic physical training exercise, reasonable care requires the risk of injury to be balanced against the value of realistic and unpredictable training. The duty does not ordinarily require trainers to choreograph every movement or give exercise-specific instructions where participants have already been trained in the relevant techniques and given general safety guidance. A claimant must also prove that the injury resulted from the breach, not merely from the exercise. If the injury would probably have occurred even with proper performance of the duty, causation is not established.

A police sergeant suffered an anterior cruciate ligament injury during a defensive tactics refresher course. The injury occurred during a new group exercise involving four officers surrounding a simulated offender. No specific demonstration or instruction had been given for that exercise, although the officers had earlier practised relevant techniques.

The County Court, before HHJ Spencer, found a breach of the duty of care because there had been no prior demonstration or instruction. The Chief Constable appealed, challenging both the finding of breach and causation. The central issues were whether realistic training required additional instructions about the officers’ roles and whether the omission caused the injury.

1. Disposition. By a majority, the appeal was allowed. Lord Justice Longmore gave the principal judgment and Lord Justice Patten agreed. Lord Justice Toulson dissented and would have upheld the County Court’s judgment.
2. Duty of care. The officers had already been trained in techniques for bringing a simulated offender to the ground and in blocking and punching routines. The clock exercise was essentially an extension of that training. A realistic exercise could not be choreographed in advance without losing its value. Trainers could provide a range of approved techniques, explain that officers should avoid injury where possible, and allow officers to exercise judgment according to the circumstances. The absence of a further demonstration or detailed instructions did not therefore amount to a breach of duty.
3. Longmore LJ was assisted by Brisco v Secretary of State for Scotland [1997] SC 14 and Grant v Chief Constable of Grampian Police [2001] Scot CS 101. Those decisions recognised the need to balance the risk of injury against the purpose of realistic training, and that useful realism could be lost by excessive prescription.
4. Causation. Longmore LJ added that, even if there had been a breach, the claimant had not shown that it caused the injury. The relevant question was whether the injury was connected with the breach, rather than merely with the exercise. The evidence suggested that contact and the resulting injury would probably have occurred even if further instruction had been given. This was an alternative basis, but the primary basis for the decision was that there had been no breach.
5. Dissent. Toulson LJ considered that the judge was entitled to find negligence. In his view, realism did not prevent basic instructions about the role of the officers positioned at the sides, and the evidence supported a finding that such instructions would probably have prevented the harmful intervention and established causation.

Order: Appeal allowed.

1. Court of Appeal (Civil Division): By a majority of Longmore LJ and Patten LJ, the appeal was allowed. Toulson LJ dissented.
2. County Court: HHJ Spencer found the Chief Constable in breach of the duty of care because no prior demonstration or instruction had been given for the clock exercise.