The so-called immunity of the police in negligence with respect to their conduct in investigating crime has caused much legal debate, not only in terms of its impact on the development of tortious principles via the concept of public policy, but also its impact on the human rights’ claims of the victims of such negligence. These factors will be considered below, but a recent decision of the Supreme Court has found that although it was important not to impose unrealistically demanding standards of care on police officers acting in the course of their operational duties, officers did not have blanket immunity from suit in respect of their conduct in investigating or preventing crime. The Supreme Court then re-iterated that the police were generally under a duty of care to avoid causing personal injuries where such a duty would arise under ordinary principles of negligence. This decision confirms that police liability for negligence in general is not automatically excluded under the so called immunity established in the case of Hill, and that liability or otherwise will be established by applying ordinary principles of duty of care formulated under general principles of negligence …
Rebecca Gladwin-Geoghegan and Steve Foster, ‘Police liability in negligence: immunity or incremental liability?’ 2018 Coventry Law Journal 38.