However, in [case], the Court of Appeal made it clear that the police did not have ‘blanket immunity’. The claimant was a pub landlady who had provided the police with information concerning a suspect involved in the death of a police officer. She had made it an absolute condition that she remained anonymous. Nevertheless, a police file containing her details was left unattended in a police car and was stolen. On being told this she suffered psychiatric illness and had to give up her job. As in previous cases, the police argued that there was no relationship of proximity between them and the claimant and, even if there were, policy reasons would prevent such a duty existing. The Court of Appeal disagreed. Informers should not be considered like other members of the public; they had a special relationship with the police, which created sufficient proximity. Policy was considered but, in this case, acted in the claimant’s favour, in that to deny that the police owe a duty might be to hinder the disclosure of confidential information. However, judgment was nevertheless granted in favour of the defendant on the basis that there had been no breach of the duty. The police owed a duty but, on the facts of the case, this duty had not actually been breached.
Answer
Swinney v Chief Constable of Northumbria (No. 2), The Times, 25 May 1999
Tags
#duty #law #negligence #tort
Question
However, in [case], the Court of Appeal made it clear that the police did not have ‘blanket immunity’. The claimant was a pub landlady who had provided the police with information concerning a suspect involved in the death of a police officer. She had made it an absolute condition that she remained anonymous. Nevertheless, a police file containing her details was left unattended in a police car and was stolen. On being told this she suffered psychiatric illness and had to give up her job. As in previous cases, the police argued that there was no relationship of proximity between them and the claimant and, even if there were, policy reasons would prevent such a duty existing. The Court of Appeal disagreed. Informers should not be considered like other members of the public; they had a special relationship with the police, which created sufficient proximity. Policy was considered but, in this case, acted in the claimant’s favour, in that to deny that the police owe a duty might be to hinder the disclosure of confidential information. However, judgment was nevertheless granted in favour of the defendant on the basis that there had been no breach of the duty. The police owed a duty but, on the facts of the case, this duty had not actually been breached.
Answer
?
Tags
#duty #law #negligence #tort
Question
However, in [case], the Court of Appeal made it clear that the police did not have ‘blanket immunity’. The claimant was a pub landlady who had provided the police with information concerning a suspect involved in the death of a police officer. She had made it an absolute condition that she remained anonymous. Nevertheless, a police file containing her details was left unattended in a police car and was stolen. On being told this she suffered psychiatric illness and had to give up her job. As in previous cases, the police argued that there was no relationship of proximity between them and the claimant and, even if there were, policy reasons would prevent such a duty existing. The Court of Appeal disagreed. Informers should not be considered like other members of the public; they had a special relationship with the police, which created sufficient proximity. Policy was considered but, in this case, acted in the claimant’s favour, in that to deny that the police owe a duty might be to hinder the disclosure of confidential information. However, judgment was nevertheless granted in favour of the defendant on the basis that there had been no breach of the duty. The police owed a duty but, on the facts of the case, this duty had not actually been breached.
Answer
Swinney v Chief Constable of Northumbria (No. 2), The Times, 25 May 1999
If you want to change selection, open original toplevel document below and click on "Move attachment"
Parent (intermediate) annotation
Open it However, in Swinney v Chief Constable of Northumbria (No. 2), The Times, 25 May 1999, the Court of Appeal made it clear that the police did not have ‘blanket immunity’. The claimant was a pub landlady who had provided the police with information concerning a suspect
Original toplevel document (pdf)
cannot see any pdfs
Summary
status
not learned
measured difficulty
37% [default]
last interval [days]
repetition number in this series
0
memorised on
scheduled repetition
scheduled repetition interval
last repetition or drill
Details
No repetitions
Discussion
Do you want to join discussion? Click here to log in or create user.