Robinson v Chief Constable of West Yorkshire Police [2018] UKSC 4

Facts

Police officers in Huddersfield were attempting to arrest a suspected drug dealer in a busy pedestrian street. The suspect resisted arrest and a struggle ensued. During the altercation, all three men fell to the ground and knocked over the claimant, Mrs Robinson, a 76-year-old woman who was walking nearby.

Mrs Robinson suffered injuries and brought a claim in negligence against the police, arguing that they had failed to exercise reasonable care in carrying out the arrest.

The police argued that, following Hill, they owed no duty of care in the performance of their operational duties and that imposing liability would be contrary to public policy.

---

Issue

Did the police owe a duty of care to a bystander injured during the course of an arrest, or were they immune from liability under a general “no duty” rule derived from Hill?

---

Decision

The Supreme Court held that the police did owe a duty of care and were liable in negligence. The Court rejected the argument that police enjoy a general immunity from negligence claims when performing their duties. Instead, ordinary principles of negligence applied. It was reasonably foreseeable that attempting to arrest a suspect in a busy street could cause injury to nearby pedestrians.

---

Legal Principle

The Supreme Court clarified that:

• The Caparo test is not a universal formula to be applied in every case. Where a case falls within an established category of negligence, courts should apply established principles rather than reapplying Caparo.

• The police are generally subject to the same principles of negligence as other defendants. There is no general immunity for police in the performance of their duties.

The case distinguishes between: liability for positive acts causing foreseeable harm (where a duty may arise), and liability for pure omissions or failure to prevent harm by third parties (as in Hill).

---

Importance

This case is crucial because it corrected a widespread misunderstanding of Hill. For years, lower courts treated Hill as creating a broad immunity for police.

Robinson reasserts that negligence develops incrementally through established categories and that public authorities are not automatically exempt from liability.

It is now the leading authority on:

• The limits of the Caparo test,

• Police liability in negligence, and

• The distinction between acts and omissions.