Chief Constable of Northamptonshire Police v Esengul Woodcock

The Court of Appeal considered two grouped appeals raising whether the police owe a private law duty of care to protect or to warn individuals of risks posed by third parties, and whether police investigative failures engaged the states obligations under Article 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights. The court reaffirmed the established common law distinction between acts which make matters worse and omissions which fail to confer a benefit, and applied recent authority (notably Tindall SC, Michael, Van Colle and Robinson) to hold that the police are generally under no duty in negligence to protect individuals from third-party criminal acts unless an established exception applies (for example, assumption of responsibility, creation of a danger, or control of the source of danger).

Applying those principles, the court allowed the Chief Constables appeal in the Woodcock case: Ritchie Js finding of a narrow duty to warn was inconsistent with the omission principle and the authorities; there was no assumption of responsibility by the police and no sufficient basis to infer that a neighbour would have acted differently. The court restored the trial judges dismissal. In the Wiltshire cases (CJ and others) the court dismissed the appellants appeals. The failings of the investigating officer (DS Ellerby) were serious operational errors but were characterised as omissions or failures to confer a benefit rather than positive acts making matters worse; the Article 3 investigatory duty was only engaged once allegations of contact offending were reported and investigated in April 2015.

The appeals concerned two separate factual episodes but the common legal issue whether the police can be liable in damages for failures to protect or warn individuals from harm caused by third parties, and whether investigative failures engaged Article 3 ECHR.

• Parties and relief sought: In Northamptonshire, Ms Woodcock sued the Chief Constable for negligence seeking damages for the polices alleged failure to warn her and to protect her from attack by her former partner. In Wiltshire, five victims (CJ, PJ, HD, PD and OB) sued the Chief Constable of Wiltshire alleging negligence and breaches of Article 3 arising from failures to investigate indecent images and identify the downloader (MP), who later committed contact sexual offences.
• Procedural posture: Both matters were appeals to the Court of Appeal from High Court decisions (Ritchie J [2023] EWHC 1062 (KB) and Martin Spencer J [2022] EWHC 1661 (QB)). Permission to appeal had been granted.
• Issues framed: (i) Whether the police owed a common-law duty of care to warn or protect individuals from third-party criminal acts; (ii) whether any exception to the omissions principle (assumption of responsibility, making matters worse, interference, control, status) applied; (iii) whether the Article 3 investigatory duty was engaged during the earlier indecent-imagery inquiry or only once contact offences were reported; (iv) whether breach and causation were established.
• Courts reasoning: The court began from the settled common-law distinction between acts (which may make matters worse and incur liability) and omissions (generally no liability). It reviewed and applied recent authority (notably Tindall SC, Michael, Van Colle, Robinson) and confirmed that foreseeability alone does not generate a duty and that established exceptions are limited. In Woodcock the court concluded there was no assumption of responsibility, no adequate basis to apply the interference principle (no reliable evidence the neighbour would have acted), and no control by the police over the third party; accordingly the finding of a narrow duty to warn could not stand. The court also held that the remittal on causation by Ritchie J was unjustified: there was no procedural irregularity warranting remittal and, on the evidence, it was reasonable to infer the claimant would have remained indoors had she been warned. In the Wiltshire cases the court held that DS Ellerbys serious failings amounted to negligent omissions rather than positive acts making matters worse; the Article 3 investigatory obligation did not arise until contact allegations were reported (April 2015), and could not be applied retrospectively to transform the earlier indecent-imagery inquiry into an Article 3 investigation.

The court therefore allowed the appeal in Woodcock and dismissed the appeals of CJ and others. The judgment emphasised the narrow scope of exceptions to the omissions principle and the importance of the distinction between making matters worse and failing to confer a benefit.

Appeals were decided in two different ways. The appeal by the Chief Constable in the Woodcock litigation is allowed: the Court of Appeal held that no duty of care to warn arose on the facts, because the police did not assume responsibility, did not make matters worse, and foreseeability alone does not impose a duty; Ritchie Js finding of a duty to warn and his remittal on causation were set aside and the trial judges dismissal restored. The appeals of CJ and others are dismissed: the court held DS Ellerbys failings were omissions/failures to confer a benefit rather than positive acts creating or increasing the danger, and the Article 3 investigatory duty was only engaged when contact offending was reported in April 2015, so there was no Article 3 breach of the earlier indecent-imagery enquiry.

Appeals to the Court of Appeal from two High Court decisions: Ritchie J, [2023] EWHC 1062 (KB) (Woodcock) and Martin Spencer J, [2022] EWHC 1661 (QB) (CJ and others). Permission to appeal was granted by William Davis LJ. The appeals were heard together in the Court of Appeal which delivered judgment on 15 January 2025 ([2025] EWCA Civ 13).