POLICE NEGLIGENCE Should the police be covered by ‘immunity’? Negligence- “Carelessly causing another person damage in breach of a duty owed to them, imposed by common law.” [1] Negligence is a Tort Law- “A civil wrong for which a remedy is available in civil courts to the wronged person.” [2] Nick Paxton, Brooke Wingrove, George Davis, Ben Newton, Stacey McSorley FOR IMMUNITY ​ ​ Police need complete freedom to do their job and should have the right to prioritise which jobs they undertake. ​ For example, if a member of the police were to be liable for the goods stolen in a shop burglary, they may decide to pursue the burglar rather than dealing with another, potentially more important offence. ​ If Police were liable for negligence, it would open the floodgate for claims against the police in terms of crimes that may not have been fully solved or dealt with. This would result in the Police becoming bankrupt. Without immunity, the Police would be liable for huge amounts of compensation which would lead to reduced funding for training and/or the equipment needed to do their job effectively. At present, £8.5 million has been paid out over the past 3 years due to bungled arrests. There is no doubt that this number would drastically increase without immunity. ​ FOR IMMUNITY ​ ​ Police need complete freedom to do their job and should have the right to prioritise which jobs they undertake. ​ For example, if a member of the police were to be liable for the goods stolen in a shop burglary, they may decide to pursue the burglar rather than dealing with another, potentially more important offence. ​ If Police were liable for negligence, it would open the floodgate for claims against the police in terms of crimes that may not have been fully solved or dealt with. This would result in the Police becoming bankrupt. Without immunity, the Police would be liable for huge amounts of compensation which would lead to reduced funding for training and/or the equipment needed to do their job effectively. At present, £8.5 million has been paid out over the past 3 years due to bungled arrests. There is no doubt that this number would drastically increase without immunity. ​ AGAINST IMMUNITY ​ ​ An automatic blanket of immunity over police negligence is considered to be problematic, as the scope of an officer’s duty remains undefined. ​ ​ If the Police have no repercussions for their actions, they may become more negligent, resulting in bad publicity and less trust in the police force. Below are two examples of Police Negligence in the UK. AGAINST IMMUNITY ​ ​ An automatic blanket of immunity over police negligence is considered to be problematic, as the scope of an officer’s duty remains undefined. ​ ​ If the Police have no repercussions for their actions, they may become more negligent, resulting in bad publicity and less trust in the police force. Below are two examples of Police Negligence in the UK. “ The current law in England and Wales on police negligent liability is highly restrictive. Following the House of Lords decision in Hill v Chief Constable of West Yorkshire, ‘de facto’ immunity from prosecution continues to be the default position where claimants bring an action against the police for their negligence in the investigation or suppression of a crime. Despite the introduction of the Human Rights Act 1998, public policy justifications form the core rationale, which serves to reject negligence claims against the police. The fact that the courts apply an extremely narrow interpretation of the ‘obligation to investigate’ under the European Convention on Human Rights makes successful claims against police negligence for the violation of human rights unlikely.” [3] Despite the literal definition of negligence, with regard to the police, it is more complex. The police have a duty of care to the public. If they breach of their duty, it could result in damage to us. This, as the definition suggests, is a case of negligence. However, since Lord Keith initiated the ‘Role of Policy’, the police are covered by ‘immunity and therefore have no repercussions for their actions.’ However, is this fair on those who are affected by police negligence? Should the police be able to ‘get away’ with their carelessness? Or is immunity a good thing? Does it allow the police to focus on trying to do their job without the constant threat of being sued? [1] and [2] University of Brighton Law of Torts Workbook distributed 2014; [3] Police Liability for Negligent Investigations: Unravelling the Blanket of Immunity, page 303, by Zoha Jamil; [4] Stephen Lawrence Pic - Daily Mail online; [5] Hillsborough - Liverpool Echo Online; [6] figures from