Sherratt v Chief Constable of Greater Manchester Police

[2018] EWHC 1746 (QB)

Case details

Case citations
[2018] EWHC 1746 (QB) · [2019] PIQR P1
Court
High Court (Queen's Bench Division)
Judgment date
16 July 2018
Judgment text

This feature is available to zoomLaw Pro members.

Subjects
Tort Negligence Police assumption of responsibility
Keywords
duty of care police negligence assumption of responsibility detrimental reliance 999 call emergency services self-inflicted harm proximity public policy
Outcome
appeal dismissed
Judicial consideration

This feature is available to zoomLaw Pro members.

Summary

A police authority may owe a private law duty of care where, in response to an emergency call, it assumes responsibility for a particular person’s welfare. The necessary proximity may arise from specific assurances given to a third party calling on that person’s behalf, together with the caller’s detrimental reliance. Strict reliance by the person at risk is not invariably required where the claim concerns negligent action or inaction rather than negligent misstatement. The general rule protecting the police from liability for failures in their public functions does not apply where the police assume responsibility for an individual and focus their response solely on that person’s welfare. Such a duty may arise in relation to self-inflicted harm without detention or custody.

Factual background

The Chief Constable appealed from a decision of Recorder Berkley QC in the Manchester County Court dated 31 October 2016. The Recorder had determined, as a preliminary issue, that the police owed a duty of care to Georgina Beevers.

Ms Beevers’s mother made a 999 call expressing grave concern for her daughter, who was reportedly at risk of taking an overdose and needed hospital assistance. The call handler said that officers would be sent to the address and that the mother should leave matters to the police. The officers did not attend until later, by which time Ms Beevers had died.

The appeal concerned whether the call created an assumption of responsibility and sufficient proximity, whether reliance by the mother could found a duty owed to the daughter, and whether a duty concerning self-harm required detention or another prior relationship.

Held

  1. Appeal dismissed. The Recorder’s factual findings were reasonably open to him on the agreed facts, transcript and audio recording. The call contained specific assurances that officers would be dispatched promptly to check on Ms Beevers and that any necessary hospital transfer would be arranged by the police. It was also open to the Recorder to find that the mother relied on those assurances and took no further steps to obtain assistance.
  2. The general rule is that the police owe no private law duty of care to individuals in respect of the ordinary exercise of their public functions in investigating and preventing crime. An exception arises where the police assume responsibility for a particular person’s safety, thereby creating sufficient proximity.
  3. On the facts, the assurance and reliance requirements were satisfied even though the assurances were given to the mother rather than Ms Beevers and the reliance was that of the mother. The circumstances were broadly analogous to Kent v Griffiths, where assurances to a doctor and reliance by the doctor supported a duty owed to the patient. The police were performing a function focused on an identified individual’s welfare, rather than their general public duty.
  4. The reasoning in White v Jones supported the conclusion that reliance is not invariably essential in claims based on negligent action or inaction. The Recorder’s references to special relationship and the Caparo principles did not alter the true basis of his decision, which was assumption of responsibility.
  5. A duty to protect against self-inflicted harm does not require detention, custody or another prior custodial relationship. Reeves v Commissioner of Police for the Metropolis was not prescriptive, and Vellino v Chief Constable of Greater Manchester Police was distinguishable. The police had accepted responsibility for the welfare of a vulnerable person reported to be in need of urgent assistance.
  6. The Recorder was therefore entitled to conclude that a duty of care arose by the end of the 999 call.

The court’s approach to earlier authorities

This feature is available to zoomLaw Pro members.

Appellate history

  • High Court (Queen’s Bench Division): Appeal dismissed. The decision of Recorder Berkley QC dated 31 October 2016, that a duty of care was owed to the deceased, was upheld.
  • Manchester County Court: Judgment for the claimant on the preliminary issue whether a duty of care was owed. Issues of breach and causation remained for later determination.

Key cases cited

This feature is available to zoomLaw Pro members.

Cases citing this case

This feature is available to zoomLaw Pro members.