Hill v Chief Constable of West Yorkshire [1989] AC 53

Jacqueline Hill was murdered by Peter Sutcliffe in 1980. Her mother alleged that failures in the police investigation had allowed him to remain at liberty and kill again. The claim sought damages from the chief constable for negligent failure to identify and apprehend the murderer sooner. Jacqueline was one of a broad class of people potentially exposed to his violence; the police had not undertaken specific responsibility for her protection. The proceedings required the House of Lords to decide whether the alleged investigation failures could support the particular private duty claimed.

• Jacqueline Hill’s estate (her mother) brought a negligence claim against the Chief Constable of West Yorkshire, alleging that the police failed in their investigatory duties in the area that had experienced the most murders

The House of Lords rejected the claim for lack of the relevant duty of care. Miss Hill was not in a sufficiently distinct relationship with the police to establish responsibility for protecting her from this criminal's acts. The judgment also discussed policy objections to liability for investigation failures. It was not a factual finding that the investigation had been conducted competently. Later, Robinson explained that Hill does not create a general police immunity: ordinary negligence duties apply when police cause harm, while a failure to protect against third-party wrongdoing generally requires an additional recognised basis for responsibility. The historical and modern explanations must therefore be distinguished.

Hill rejected a duty to this victim for alleged police failure to identify and arrest a serial killer. It does not grant police general immunity from negligence. Modern authority distinguishes causing harm from failing to protect against a danger created by someone else.

Hill is frequently overstated as a rule that police cannot be sued for operational negligence. Robinson expressly rejects that reading and explains the result through ordinary duties and omissions principles. The case also illustrates why a failed claim does not establish that the defendant's conduct was careful. Students should identify the particular duty alleged and compare cases involving danger created by police, custody, control or an assumption of responsibility before drawing conclusions.