Date: Fri, 5 Oct 2007 10:28

From: John Murphy

Subject: Police liability

Dear David:

I feel I should say thanks for the swift feedback. But I think it is more apt to say: Go back to bed, you fool (unless of course you are on this side of the pond, just now).

Anyway, I take your points that (i) the police are insured and (ii) individual officers can hide behind vicarious liability. But there are still at least 2 reasons why practice may change.

First, the opening up of liability may lead to an institutional response (e.g., the big chiefs of the police force now insist "you guys must now do things in pairs rather than alone").

Secondly, although not worried about financial consequences, individual officers could still disciplined, demoted, forced into early retirement etc. So even though they won't be required to cough up the damages, there is still the prospect of heightened accountability, both prior to the potential cock up (as in the "do things in pairs" example) and retrospective (as in the disciplining, demoting etc example).

No doubt, time will tell. In the meantime, get some sleep.

J

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