The Editor's Blog

4 - Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis (Appellant) v DSD and another (Respondents) [2018] UKSC 11 - Implications for the Police

The law has repeatedly made clear that police cannot in general terms be sued for negligence, nor can they be sued if they fail to catch an offender, nor can they be sued if because of a slow moving investigation, they fail to catch an offender prior to the commission of further offences.

Under Article 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights the state has a duty to prevent citizens becoming victims of torture, and inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.  There are no exceptions or limitations on this right.

The effect of this ruling is that

• the police are obliged under Article 3 to conduct an effective investigation into crimes which involve serious violence to persons, and
• an individual who has suffered ill-treatment contrary to Article 3 has a right to claim compensation where there has been a failure by the police to conduct a sufficient investigation into the crime.

In other words, police forces are under a clear obligation to prove they had effectively and exhaustively investigated a serious violent crime, i.e. that the specific operational steps taken to identify the offender were effective. If the investigation is seriously defective, even if no systemic failures are present, this will be enough to render the police liable."

This means that:

• every serious violent crime investigation will now have to be robust,
• nothing can be left to chance,
• everything must be reviewed,
• decision-making must be effective,
• everything must be documented,
• training must be focused and effective, and
• service delivery must be improved.

Not every failing in an investigation will be actionable and the test for liability is more than mere negligence, i.e. a failing must be:

• conspicuous or substantial;
• really serious;
• outstandingly bad, or
• obvious and significant.