Alcock v Chief Constable of the South Yorkshire Police [1992] 1 A.C. 310

C were friends and relatives of individuals who died as a result of the Hillsborough disaster. This occurred due to D’s negligence in policing the event. Several of them had been present at the stadium or had watched the events live on TV. Most had heard of the disaster and later saw TV recordings. All members of C suffered psychiatric shock or illness. Collectively, they brought action against D for negligence as secondary victims of psychiatric harm. At first instance, the judge held that the 9 people who had been inside or immediately outside the stadium, or who had watched the event live, could claim damages but excluded the other members of C. D appealed that the 9 successful members of C were not sufficiently proximate to the event as established in McLoughlin v O’Brian [1983] 1 A.C. 410.

• Could C claim for psychiatric harm arising from an event where they were not physically harmed, or in some cases physically absent?

The House of Lords rejected the claims before it. A recognised psychiatric illness did not, without more, establish a duty to a secondary victim. Claimants needed sufficiently close ties of love and affection, proximity to the accident or its immediate aftermath, and direct perception of the relevant events. The necessary ties were not presumed for brothers or brothers-in-law and had not been proved. The television footage did not show the suffering of recognisable relatives and was not equivalent to witnessing the disaster. Later identification of bodies at the mortuary did not establish the required immediate aftermath. These conclusions were tied to the evidence and means of perception in the individual claims.

Secondary-victim recovery requires a recognised psychiatric illness and the relevant proximity controls, including close ties of love and affection and direct perception of an accident or its immediate aftermath. General television coverage of Hillsborough did not satisfy those controls on the facts of Alcock.

Alcock explains why foreseeability of distress alone does not establish secondary-victim liability. It also distinguishes relationships in which affection may be presumed from those requiring proof. Paul v Royal Wolverhampton NHS Trust [2024] UKSC 1 re-examined the authorities and confined the accident exception in the medical-negligence appeals before it. Modern answers should not add an independent requirement that an event pass a judicial test of sufficient horror, or say that all television perception is necessarily excluded.