The Line of Duty: Recent Shifts in Police and Public Liability Rulings in the UK

The relationship between the police and the public, particularly concerning legal liability, has long been a topic of significant debate in the United Kingdom.

In recent years, several key legal cases have signalled a shift in the way courts approach the issue of police and public liability. Among these are the landmark cases of Michael v Chief Constable of South Wales Police (2015) and Robinson v Chief Constable of West Yorkshire Police (2018), which have set important precedents that are now being examined and expanded upon in subsequent legal cases, including the recent Chief Constable of Northamptonshire v Woodcock (2025).

The Line of Duty and Police Liability

The principle of “duty of care” is foundational to the relationship between public authorities, like the police, and members of the public. Traditionally, the police have been afforded a certain level of immunity from liability, especially when it comes to operational decisions and actions performed in the line of duty. The doctrine known as discretionary immunity has protected police forces from being held accountable for decisions made in the course of their work, particularly where these decisions are seen as part of their judgment in protecting the public.

However, in recent years, the UK courts have taken steps to reframe the boundaries of police responsibility, signalling a shift in public policy on the matter of police liability.

Michael v Chief Constable of South Wales Police (2015)

In the Michael case, the Supreme Court ruled that the police did not owe a duty of care to an individual who was the victim of a domestic violence incident, even though the police had received a 999 call and failed to respond in a timely manner. The decision reaffirmed the general principle that the police do not owe a “duty of care” to individuals in certain situations, especially in cases involving the exercise of operational discretion.

The case was a reminder of the immunity granted to the police when acting in the public interest.

In the instance of Michael, the Court concluded that the police were not liable for failing to prevent a crime because the decision to prioritise other calls over the victims was within their discretion, and no personal duty of care was owed to the individual.

However, this judgment also raised concerns about the limitations of accountability when it comes to public authorities. The case did not mark the end of judicial inquiry into police responsibility, but rather indicated a complex balancing of police discretion against citizens’ rights to safety and protection.

Robinson v Chief Constable of West Yorkshire Police (2018)

In stark contrast to Michael, the Robinson case represented a landmark shift in police liability rulings. The case involved an elderly woman who was injured when the police, while attempting to arrest a suspect, inadvertently knocked her over. The Court ruled that the police did owe a duty of care to the individual, even though the act was part of an operational decision related to a lawful arrest.

This case is seen as significant because it acknowledged that, while police officers are given certain protections when making discretionary decisions, they cannot escape liability if their actions are considered negligent and directly result in harm. The judgment marked a shift from the traditional view that operational decisions by the police were immune from scrutiny and opened the door for further exploration of the circumstances under which police officers may be held accountable for their actions.

Tindall v Chief Constable of Thames Valley Police (2024)

In the 2024 Supreme Court case Tindall v Chief Constable of Thames Valley Police, the Court addressed the complex issue of police liability in negligence, particularly concerning omissions (failure to act when there is a duty to act) and the potential to “make matters worse.”

The case arose from a tragic incident in which Malcolm Tindall died in a road traffic accident after a prior crash on the same stretch of icy road. The first driver, upon losing control, had attempted to warn other motorists of the hazard. The police arrived, placed a warning sign, and subsequently left the scene, removing the sign. Approximately 20 minutes later, another driver lost control on the same patch of ice, leading to a fatal collision involving Mr. Tindall.

The claimant argued that the police had “made matters worse” by displacing the first driver’s warning efforts without taking adequate steps to warn other road users. Central to the claimant’s case was the “interference principle,” which suggests that if a person knows or ought to know that their actions might prevent another from offering assistance, they may owe a duty of care. However, the Supreme Court found that the police were unaware of the first driver’s attempts to warn others. There was no evidence to suggest that the police knew or should have known that their actions would deter the first driver from continuing his warnings.

Consequently, the Court concluded that the police had not “made matters worse” and, therefore, did not owe a duty of care to the claimant.

This judgment underscores the Court’s adherence to the principle that liability in negligence typically arises from actions that worsen a situation, rather than from omissions or failures to act. It also highlights the importance of establishing a clear causal link between the defendant’s conduct and the harm suffered. While the case did not establish new legal principles, it reaffirmed existing ones within the context of public authority liability.

Chief Constable of Northamptonshire v Woodcock & CJ v Chief Constable of Wiltshire (2025)

Two recent cases, Chief Constable of Northamptonshire v Woodcock and CJ v Chief Constable of Wiltshire, both heard in 2025, further expand upon the evolving principles of police liability.

In the 2025 Court of Appeal case Chief Constable of Northamptonshire v Woodcock [2025] EWCA Civ 13, the court reinforced the established legal principles governing police liability, particularly concerning omissions and the “interference principle.” The claimant, Ms. Woodcock, alleged that the police had failed to warn her about the presence of her former partner, who had previously threatened her and later attacked her. She contended that the police’s inaction constituted a breach of their duty of care.

The Court of Appeal allowed the Chief Constable’s appeal, overturning the High Court’s decision that had found a duty of care. The court emphasised that for a duty of care to arise in negligence claims against public authorities, there must be an assumption of responsibility or an act that makes matters worse. In this case, the police’s failure to act was deemed an omission, not an affirmative act that worsened the situation. Furthermore, the court found no evidence that the police had prevented others from assisting Ms. Woodcock, a key element in establishing liability under the “interference principle.”

This decision aligns with the Supreme Court’s ruling in Tindall v Chief Constable of Thames Valley Police (2024), which clarified that a transient and ineffectual response by police does not involve an assumption of responsibility for preventing harm.

Both cases underscore the judiciary’s cautious approach to expanding police liability, reaffirming that public authorities are generally not liable for omissions unless exceptional circumstances exist

In CJ and Others v Chief Constable of Wiltshire Police (2025), the Court of Appeal addressed claims brought by multiple victims of sexual abuse against the police. The claimants alleged that the police had failed to act on evidence of indecent images of children found on a perpetrator’s laptop, which they contended could have prevented subsequent abuse. The Court upheld the High Court’s decision, affirming that the police did not owe a duty of care to the claimants. The Court emphasised that the police’s failure to act was an omission, not an affirmative act that made matters worse, and thus did not establish liability. Additionally, the Court found that the police’s duty under Article 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights did not arise until they were aware of actual abuse, not merely from the discovery of the images. This judgment reinforces the principle that public authorities, including the police, are generally not liable for failing to prevent harm caused by third parties unless they have assumed responsibility or made matters worse.

Conclusion: Evolving Standards in Police and Public Liability Jurisprudence

The recent rulings in Michael v Chief Constable of South Wales Police (2015), Robinson v Chief Constable of West Yorkshire Police (2018), Tindall v Chief Constable of Northamptonshire (2024), CJ v Chief Constable of Wiltshire (2025), and Chief Constable of Northamptonshire v Woodcock (2025) demonstrate a clear evolution in the approach to police and public liability in the UK. While the police have historically been granted significant immunity from liability in the exercise of their operational discretion, these cases reveal a gradual shift towards holding them accountable in certain situations.

The judgments in Robinson and Tindall marked pivotal moments, where the courts acknowledged that police forces could be held liable for negligence when their actions, or failures to act, directly cause harm to the public. In Robinson, the Court broke with previous precedent, recognising that the police owe a duty of care to individuals when their actions create a foreseeable risk of harm. Similarly, in Tindall, the Court signalled that police delay, especially when they have assumed a role in a situation, could lead to liability if it results in harm.

However, as demonstrated by Michael and Woodcock, the courts continue to be cautious in extending liability. They have reinforced that police actions that are deemed discretionary, particularly in cases involving operational decisions, may still be shielded from legal accountability unless the police have assumed a direct responsibility for the safety of an individual or made a situation worse.

Cases like CJ v Chief Constable of Wiltshire further underscore that the police’s omission to act, without an active interference or assumption of responsibility, does not automatically trigger liability.

Taken together, these rulings suggest that the courts are navigating a delicate balance between ensuring police accountability and preserving their ability to make operational decisions without fear of excessive litigation. While there is an increasing willingness to scrutinise police actions, especially in cases involving direct harm to the public, the evolving legal landscape reflects an ongoing process of refining the parameters of police responsibility, making it a critical area of legal development for both law enforcement and citizens.

Get Expert Legal Advice Today

If you or someone you know has been affected by police conduct or a failure in public authority duty, it’s essential to understand your rights under the evolving landscape of UK law.

At Hopkins Solicitors, our experienced Personal Injury Team is well-versed in navigating these intricate legal developments. Whether you’re seeking advice about a potential claim or need guidance on recent case law implications, we’re here to help.

Don’t navigate this complex area of law alone, get in touch with Hopkins Solicitors today for expert, compassionate support and clear legal guidance.