Facts
In 2008, police officers in Huddersfield tried to arrest a suspected drug dealer on a busy shopping street. He resisted, and during the struggle he and the officers fell onto Elizabeth Robinson, a 76-year-old woman walking past. She was knocked to the ground and injured.
The trial judge found that the officers had been negligent, because it was foreseeable that the suspect would try to escape and that passers-by could be hurt. But he held that the police were immune from liability, relying on Hill v Chief Constable of West Yorkshire [1989] AC 53. The Court of Appeal also dismissed her claim.
Issues
- Did the police owe Mrs Robinson a duty of care?
- Do the police have a special immunity from negligence claims arising out of their operational activities?
- How should courts decide whether a duty of care exists?
Decision
The Supreme Court allowed Mrs Robinson's appeal. The officers owed her a duty of care, they breached it, and the Chief Constable was liable. Lord Reed gave the leading judgment, with which Lady Hale and Lord Hodge agreed. Lord Mance and Lord Hughes agreed in the result.
Reasoning
No police immunity. Hill was a case about a failure to protect the public from a criminal (the Yorkshire Ripper). It didn't decide that the police are immune whenever they're investigating or preventing crime. Like anyone else, the police are subject to the ordinary law of negligence, which means they owe a duty not to cause foreseeable physical injury through their positive acts.
Acts and omissions. The common law generally doesn't impose liability for omissions, including failing to protect someone from harm caused by a third party, unless there's a special reason such as an assumption of responsibility. Hill and Michael v Chief Constable of South Wales Police [2015] UKSC 2 fall into that category. This case was different: the officers' own actions caused the harm.
Caparo correctly understood. Lord Reed explained that Caparo Industries plc v Dickman [1990] 2 AC 605 didn't create a three-stage test to be applied every time. Where a duty has been established by precedent, the court applies it. In novel cases, the court develops the law incrementally, by analogy with decided cases, and considers whether it would be just and reasonable to impose a duty. The "fair, just and reasonable" question isn't a free-standing policy test in every case.
Breach. The officers had foreseen that the suspect might try to run, and they knew Mrs Robinson was close by. Attempting the arrest at that moment created a foreseeable risk to her, so they had breached their duty.
Why it matters
Robinson is now the starting point for duty of care in English law. It simplifies the analysis: most negligence cases involve established duties, and courts shouldn't reopen them with a policy debate.
It also clarifies the acts and omissions distinction, which later Supreme Court cases have applied to public bodies, including Poole BC v GN [2019] UKSC 25 (local authorities and children at risk) and HXA v Surrey County Council [2023] UKSC 52.
How it comes up in exams
Use Robinson to structure duty in any negligence problem:
- Is the harm physical injury or damage caused by a positive act? If so, a duty is likely to be established by precedent.
- Is the claim really about an omission or a failure to protect from a third party? Then look for an exception: assumption of responsibility, control, creation of the danger, or a special relationship.
- Is it genuinely novel? Then reason by analogy, considering the Caparo factors.
For public authorities, including the police, apply the same ordinary principles.
Frequently asked questions
What was decided in Robinson v Chief Constable of West Yorkshire Police?
The Supreme Court held that police officers who knocked over a 76-year-old pedestrian while arresting a suspect owed her a duty of care, breached it, and were liable for her injuries.
Do the police have immunity from negligence claims?
No. The Supreme Court said Hill v Chief Constable of West Yorkshire didn't create an immunity. The police are generally not liable for failing to protect people from harm caused by others, but they are liable, like anyone, for injuries their own positive acts foreseeably cause.
What did Robinson say about Caparo?
That Caparo didn't create a three-stage test to be applied in every case. In established categories, courts follow precedent. Only in novel situations do they develop the law incrementally, considering what is fair, just and reasonable.
What is the difference between acts and omissions in negligence?
A person who causes harm by a positive act can be liable under ordinary principles. A person who merely fails to prevent harm, including harm caused by a third party, generally owes no duty unless an exception applies, such as an assumption of responsibility or control.