PI Brief Update

Woodcock v Chief Constable of Northamptonshire Police; HD, PD, CJ, PJ and OB v Chief Constable of Wiltshire Police [2025] EWCA Civ 13 - Philip Matthews, Temple Garden Chambers

26/02/25. This judgment involved two separate appeals concerning police liability for failing to prevent harm caused by third parties. The appeals were heard together as they raised similar legal issues.

Woodcock v Chief Constable of Northamptonshire Police

Ms Woodcock was attacked and seriously injury by her ex-partner, despite prior reports to the police about his threats and his breaches of bail conditions. She brought an action against the police in negligence, claiming that they failed to protect her, specifically by not warning her of his presence prior to the attack. The claim was initially dismissed at first instance, but on appeal Ritchie J found that the police were under a duty to warn Ms Woodcock and remitted the case for further consideration of causation.

CJ and Others v Chief Constable of Wilshire Police

Five victims of sexual abuse sued the police, alleging a failure to investigate incident images of children previously found on the perpetrator’s laptop. The action was brought in negligence and under the Human rights Act (Article 3). The High Court dismissed their claims, finding no common law duty of care, and ruling that the police’s investigative duty under Article 3 was not engaged until they were aware of actual abuse.

The Court of Appeals Decision

The Court of Appeal ruled in favour of the police in both cases, emphasising established legal principles that public authorities, including the police, do not generally owe a duty of care to prevent harm by third parties.

In Woodcock, the Court found that the police’s failure to warn was an omission, not a negligent act making the situation worse. The submission that the police had assumed a responsibility for Ms Woodcock’s safety was rejected.

Likewise, in CJ the Court upheld the High Court’s ruling that the police had no duty of care in negligence, and their duty under HRA Article 2 only arise when they were informed of the abuse suffered by the claimant’s not when the laptop images were previously discovered.

Status Quo Reaffirmed

This judgment reinforces existing case law which limits police liability for failures to prevent harm caused by third parties. Specifically, the following principles have been affirmed: the police are not liable for failing to prevent harm, save for the narrow exceptions where they have assumed responsibility or made matters worse; and Article 3 of the ECHR does not impose a broad investigatory duty unless authorities are aware of a real and immediate risk.

https://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2025/13.pdf

Image ©iStockphoto.com/jeffdalt