introduction

Question 1

Ashley v Chief Constable of Sussex (2008)

Answer 1

Facts: V shot dead, police honestly believed in danger so not liable for negligence, family C allowed battery claim to proceed.
Principle: Tort’s vindicatory function - C can pursue a claim to obtain a judicial declaration that rights were violated, even damages are nominal.

Question 2

DSD v Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis (2018)

Answer 2

Facts: Victims of serial sexual assaults by taxi driver alleged the police made serious investigative errors, allowing further offending — liable. C sued under HRA Art3 instead of negligence (due to Smith/Michael difficulties).
Principle: Police generally do not owe a duty of care in negligence for failures in investigating crime, but may still be liable under the Human Rights Act.

Question 3

Smith v Chief Constable of Sussex Police (2008)

Answer 3

Facts: After a former partner sent repeated explicit death threats, Mr Smith reported them to police multiple times, offering to show the messages; the police took limited action — no liability.
Principle: House of Lords held (majority) no duty of care in negligence on the police to protect an individual from a third party’s violence in the circumstances; imposing such a duty was not fair, just and reasonable.

Question 4

Michael v Chief Constable of South Wales Police (2015)

Answer 4

Facts: Joanna Michael called 999 saying her ex-partner had assaulted her and threatened to return imminently; the call was mishandled and downgraded due to communication failures between forces — no liability.
Principle: Supreme Court held the police generally owe no duty of care in negligence for omissions in preventing crime; no duty arose here absent assumption of responsibility or a created danger.