Griffiths & Ors v Suffolk Police & Anor

A mental-health practitioner is not negligent merely because another responsible body of opinion would have reached a different clinical judgment. The Mental Health Act 1983 criteria must be considered separately: if the statutory threshold for mental disorder warranting detention is not met, compulsory admission cannot lawfully follow, regardless of perceived risk.

Common-law and Convention duties to protect a person from harm caused by a third party require a sufficiently foreseeable and identifiable risk. Under Articles 2 and 3, the authorities must have known, or ought to have known, of a real and immediate threat and failed to take reasonable measures within their powers. General shortcomings in systems or training do not establish a breach without a sufficiently serious connection to that risk.

The claim arose from the murder of Mary Griffiths by John McFarlane on 6 May 2009. Her three daughters claimed damages against the Chief Constable of Suffolk Police and the Norfolk and Suffolk NHS Foundation Trust.

The NHS Trust was alleged to have negligently assessed and released Mr McFarlane after a suicide attempt, failed to provide adequate follow-up, and failed to warn Ms Griffiths or the police. The police were alleged to have mishandled and insufficiently prioritised Ms Griffiths’ emergency call reporting harassment and fear. The claims were advanced under the Fatal Accidents Act 1976, in negligence and under Articles 2, 3 and 8 of the Convention.

1. NHS Trust. The claim in negligence failed. The assessment on 3 May 2009 was thorough and was conducted in accordance with a responsible body of psychiatric opinion. The assessors reasonably concluded that the first limb of section 2 of the Mental Health Act 1983 was not met. Compulsory admission therefore could not lawfully arise. They also reasonably concluded that the risk of suicide did not satisfy the second limb. The community care plan was reasonable and was implemented adequately.
2. The court accepted the evidence of Dr Stagias about his telephone conversations with Mr Bowe. Mr Bowe was given sufficient information about the suicide attempt, the assessment, the continuing Crisis Team support and the arrangements for raising concerns. He did not withdraw his agreement to accommodate Mr McFarlane. No breach of the duty owed to Mr McFarlane was established.
3. The NHS Trust neither knew nor ought to have known of a real and immediate risk that Mr McFarlane would murder Ms Griffiths, seriously assault her, or subject her to stalking, harassment or sexual assault. There was therefore no common-law duty to warn her or the police, and no operational duty under Articles 2 or 3. Bljakaj did not make a risk of suicide, without more, a risk to the public.
4. The voicemail left by Ms Harpur-Lewis on 5 May was not left on the Crisis Team’s emergency line. The system was not shown to be negligent or systemically deficient. Internal communication within the NHS Trust was adequate.
5. Suffolk Police. The call was reasonably recorded and graded as Grade 3. The information available did not disclose a real and immediate threat to life or a serious assault. The later telephone call proposing attendance on 6 May was accepted by Ms Griffiths without protest or expression of urgent danger. Neither the operational nor general protective duties under Articles 2 or 3 were breached. Article 8 could not provide an independent route to liability on these facts.
6. The claims against both defendants were dismissed.