Esengul Woodcock v The Chief Constable of Northamptonshire Police

The police generally owe no private-law duty to protect individuals from harm caused by criminals, or to prevent crime through omissions in the performance of public functions. The ordinary law of negligence nevertheless applies to the police when their own acts cause foreseeable physical harm. A limited duty to warn may arise where special or exceptional circumstances exist, or where the police have assumed responsibility for protecting a specific person from a specific threat.

The inquiry is fact-sensitive. Relevant matters include foreseeability and seriousness of harm, the known conduct of the alleged attacker, proximity, the police’s words and conduct and any reliance, together with the public-policy balance. On the facts, a duty to warn arose after a neighbour reported that a known and dangerous assailant was outside the claimant’s home. The police breached that duty by failing to telephone her.

The claimant appealed from the dismissal of her negligence claim against the Chief Constable. She had been seriously stabbed by a former partner shortly after leaving her home with her children. The police knew of repeated threats, breaches of bail, criminal damage and an urgent plan to arrest him.

At 7.32 am a neighbour telephoned 999 to report that the former partner was loitering outside the claimant’s house and was likely to attack her when she left for work. Officers were dispatched, but nobody warned the claimant by telephone. The central issues were whether the police owed a duty to warn, whether that duty was breached, and whether causation had been established.

1. Appeal allowed. The lower court was wrong to reject the possibility of a civil duty to warn on the facts. The general principles governing duties of care apply to the police, but public policy normally excludes liability for failing to protect the public from crimes committed by third parties. That general rule is subject to limited exceptions.
2. A duty to protect or warn may arise where special or exceptional circumstances exist, or where the police have assumed a specific responsibility to protect a specific person from a specific threat. The court should examine:
   1. the foreseeability and seriousness of the threatened harm;
   2. the known conduct and threats of the specific alleged attacker;
   3. the course of dealing and proximity between the victim, police and attacker;
   4. the police’s words or conduct and any reliance by the victim; and
   5. whether public-policy reasons against liability outweigh the policy favouring compensation.
3. The claimant’s case was materially different from Hill, Michael and Smith and Van Colle. It concerned an urgent warning to a specific victim, at a specific address, about a specific and known attacker, shortly before the victim was expected to leave. The police had received the information from a neighbour who could not safely pass it on, and had themselves established safety arrangements directed to identifying the attacker’s presence.
4. Those circumstances created both special or exceptional circumstances and an assumed responsibility to warn. The police therefore owed a common-law duty to telephone the claimant after the 999 call. The failure to do so was a breach. The relevant question was whether the police, as an organisation, failed to pass on the warning; deficiencies in training or procedures did not provide a defence.
5. The claimant had not adduced sufficient evidence to establish causation, and the appeal court could not declare the lower court’s evidential conclusion wrong. However, it was unjust to determine the issue finally without a proper opportunity to hear evidence on what the claimant would have done if warned. The claim was remitted to the trial judge, if available, for determination of causation.

• High Court (King’s Bench Division): appeal allowed from the County Court judgment; the issue of causation was remitted to the trial judge, if available, under CPR rule 52.20.
• County Court sitting in Leicester: after a five-day trial, HHJ Murdoch dismissed the claim with costs on 19 April 2021.