Date: Thu, 4 Oct 2007 20:08

From: Ken Oliphant

Subject: Hill v. Hamilton-Wentworth Regional Police Services Board

Interesting case. I see there was a 6-3 split. UK lawyers should particularly note this passage (para 57) from the majority judgment:

The record does not support the conclusion that recognizing potential liability in tort significantly changes the behaviour of police ... [there follows reference to empirical literature]. Whatever the situation may have been in the United Kingdom (see Brooks v. Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis, [2005] 1 W.L.R. 1495, [2005] UKHL 24; Hill v. Chief Constable of West Yorkshire, [1988] 2 All E.R. 238 (H.L.)), the studies adduced in this case do not support the proposition that recognition of tort liability for negligent police investigation will impair it.

Ken

--On 04 October 2007 14:58 -0400 Erika Chamberlain wrote:

In fairness to the SCC, causation was not at issue in Hill.

Importantly, however, Hill establishes that the police owe a duty of care to suspects when investigating crimes, and can be liable for negligent investigation.

----------------------
Ken Oliphant, CSET Reader in Tort, School of Law, University of Bristol, Wills Memorial Building, Queens Road, Bristol BS8 1RJ.

<<<< Previous Message  ~  Index  ~  Next Message >>>>>