Michael v Chief Constable of South Wales Police [2015] UKSC 2
Michael v Chief Constable of South Wales Police is a leading authority on negligence liability for omissions by public authorities. It applies the general rule that the police do not owe a private-law duty merely because they could have protected a person from harm caused by a third party.
Facts
Joanna Michael telephoned 999 after her former partner found her with another man, assaulted her and threatened to return to kill her. The call was handled by South Wales Police but, because information about the threat was not accurately passed on, its priority was downgraded. Ms Michael called again shortly afterwards. Police arrived around twenty-two minutes after the first call and found that she had been murdered. Her family brought claims in negligence and under article 2 of the European Convention on Human Rights. They argued that the police knew of an imminent risk, had undertaken to respond and would probably have prevented the killing if officers had attended promptly.
Legal Issue
Did the police owe Ms Michael a common-law duty to take reasonable care to protect her from the threatened violence of a third party, and had the emergency call created an assumption of responsibility?
Held
By a majority, the Supreme Court held that the negligence claim disclosed no duty of care. The police had not created the danger and were accused of failing to prevent harm caused by Ms Michael's former partner. The ordinary law does not impose liability for such an omission merely because a public authority has powers or resources to intervene. A duty could arise through an assumption of responsibility, but the call handler had not given a sufficiently specific assurance on which Ms Michael relied. The Court declined to create a special duty based on the seriousness and proximity of the reported threat. The separate article 2 claim was governed by different principles and was permitted to proceed to trial; the common-law ruling did not decide that claim.
⭐ Legal Principle
A public authority is generally not liable in negligence for failing to protect a person from harm caused by a third party unless an established exception applies, such as the authority creating the danger or assuming responsibility to the claimant. Knowledge of an imminent risk and capacity to intervene do not alone create a common-law duty.
Significance
The decision rejects a special negligence test for police operational failures and places public authorities within the ordinary law of omissions. It is not a blanket police immunity: liability may arise where officers make matters worse, control a source of danger or undertake responsibility through words or conduct. Robinson v Chief Constable of West Yorkshire Police later reinforced that distinction, while Tindall v Chief Constable of Thames Valley Police clarified the limits of the interference and assumption-of-responsibility exceptions. Human-rights duties remain separate from common-law negligence.
Common exam questions about this case
Why was foreseeable and imminent danger insufficient to create a duty in Michael?
The danger came from a third party and the police had not created it. Negligence law does not ordinarily require a person or public authority to protect another from harm merely because intervention is possible, even where the risk is foreseeable. A claimant must bring the case within a recognised basis for positive responsibility, such as creation of danger or an assumption of responsibility.
Did the 999 call amount to an assumption of responsibility?
The majority held that it did not. The call handler had not made a sufficiently definite promise that officers would arrive within a particular time, nor was the case pleaded on a clear reliance that left Ms Michael worse off. Receiving information and undertaking ordinary emergency-service functions did not by themselves amount to a private undertaking enforceable in negligence.
Does Michael give the police immunity from all negligence claims?
No. The police are subject to ordinary negligence principles. They may be liable for positive acts that cause foreseeable injury, as illustrated by Robinson, or where an established exception to the omissions rule applies. Michael concerned a failure to prevent a third party's violence. It also did not dispose of the family's distinct claim under article 2 of the European Convention on Human Rights.