To what extent have judicial concerns about public policy restricted the circumstances in which a duty of care can be owed?

Throughout the past 50 years, there have been great changes in both the legal and constitutional status of the police forces within England and Wales, (Reiner, 2010:206) and parallel to this, the concept of accountability within the police forces has become a controversial yet universal concept with regards to the encompassing regulation of the police, their performance and the use of their approved legal powers (Jones, 2008). Specifically, within the last twenty years, many issues have triggered controversy within the general public with reference to police accountability within England and Wales, such issues including, corruption, abuse of powers, discrimination, racial bias, and the perceived effectiveness of crime control. In turn, these

Through the Law Enforcement Powers and Responsibilities Act 2002 (NSW) (LEPRA), police have certain powers to help them do their jobs and enforce the law. But these powers that police have been granted also have limits to help protect the rights of the victim, the suspect and the society “particularly when these powers affect the civil liberties of members in the community whom the police serve” as stated by the former Attorney-General Robert Debus.

Bulsey & Anor v State of Queensland [2015] QCA 187 signified the requirements of legal justifications when conducting unwarranted arrests, and further expresses the importance of the right to personal liberty as it is ‘the most fundamental of the human rights recognised under the common law.’ It was evident to the Judges that at least one officer held reasonable suspicion that “the suspect” had committed an indictable offence, but the lawfulness of the arrest was inevitably questioned as to whether an officer with reasonable suspicion was the arresting officer. The judgements in favour of the appellants heightens the need for officers to use their powers within the ‘confines of the law’ when ‘forcibly arrest[ing] and detaining’ a person as to preserve the right to personal liberty, for once this right is left in the power of any authority, to imprison arbitrarily whomever they suspect, ‘there would soon be an end of all other rights and immunities.’

1: Imagine walking through Sydney Airport, excited as you wait to catch your flight when all of a sudden a brawl that can only be described as “chaotic, wild and uncontrolled” breaks out. As you watch on, frozen in fear, a man begins to aggressively beat his rival with a metal bollard, stabbing him and killing him in cold blood; How would you feel if that man was allowed to walk the streets of NSW? Walk on the same footpath as you, shop in the same aisle as you. Well this man, Mick Hawi was allowed to, as he was released on bail five years after committing this crime.

The name of the parties are (appellant) commissioner of the police of the metropolis,(respondent) Mr. Michael Rottman . The judgment has been held in the house of lords. The judges on this were- Lord Nicholls of Birkenhead, Lord Hoffmann, Lord Hope of Craighead, Lord Hutton and Lord Roger of Earlsferry. The barristers and solicitors in this case were, Mr. Perry, on behalf of the appellant and Miss Montgomery, for the respondent. The date of the judgment was 16th may 2002.

Today in the world there are many incidents in society that are caused from false assumptions which lead to wrong decisions being made. These incidents are mainly based off of beliefs of certain stereotypes, and citizens begin to wonder if the police force is doing their job through justice, or simply misusing their power by mixing their own social and racial conclusions within their job. This leads to the fact that equality never really exists anywhere, and even ‘prominent’ individuals such as police officers are guilty of this, leading to the conclusion that even the law cannot be trusted.

Following an internal review the police had a responsibility to refer the case to the Independent Police Complaints Commission (IPCC) for investigation, but failed in their statutory duty to meet this principle. Subsequently the case did not receive media coverage until the IPCC prompted referral in September 2009 (Gov, 2009). The outcomes were in the public interest as it showed loss of public confidence in authorities, principally by the police, to manage continuous accusations of harassment; and loss of attributes like “sensitivity, compassion, trustworthiness” in professionals, including social workers (Jos and Hines, 1993 pg. 382). It is important for the government to tackle these issues and ensure organisations learn from this to reinstate

Police historically have valued their ability to utilise discretion where warranted as discussed in the article by Bronitt and Stenning (2011). The use of discretion is valued by police as it allows individual officers to utilise their ‘interpretive judgement’, which means they can choose how to act based on their experience and judgement. In this case, the response could be to utilise their discretion to act by increasing the police numbers as opposed to enforcing the

Negligence cases and their analyses have dominated our judicial system from its very inception. This can be attributed to the human need to find fault and administer blame for wrong-doings and the mere fact that committing negligence is so simple one may not even realize that it is being committed until one is served with court documents. For example, pretend your home has a very steep step leading to the front door. You are aware of this – after all, you live there – but you want to ensure the safety of all visitors to your home. Suppose each day you place a sign by the driveway that states, “Caution! Beware of steep step;” however, one day you decide to take a vacation and decide that is unnecessary to put the sign out for the duration

Since the eighteenth century society has been controlled by policing to deal with the ‘problem’ of ‘crime’. Although there are various perceptions of what ‘crime’ is and means, we can view it as an offence or act which is able to be punished by the Law. Despite this, the Police arguably omit ‘crimes’ caused by particular individuals or groups such as; the bourgeois and white males and females. Many occasions these responses deny less privileged and minority groups equality within the criminal justice system, furthermore breaking the rule of Law. An ideology in which everyone is equal before the Law, (Bingham,2010:85) implies,“It would seem to be an obvious implication of the principle that everyone is bound by and entitled to the protection of the law.” Unfortunately this is not the case with many responses by policing.

The findings came out six months later and Lord Schuman’s, who led the inquiry, recommendations sent shock waves throughout Britain. For the first time in History, he put the police as an institution on trial and found them guilty. He said a large degree of responsibility lay at the door of the

In line with the increasing trend to find in favour of the plaintiff, where liability of public authorities is involved, the High Court (‘the Court’) held that the appellants (‘CSY, Michael and others’) were assaulted by the respondents (‘The Chief Constable of South Wales Police and another’), prison officials at the Silverwater Prison of South Wales. The Court’s reasoning, principles and ultimately its decision in CSY, Michael and others (Appellants) v The Chief Constable of South Wales Police and another were logical in light of the well-established common law principle. However, this paper proposes

The Criminal justice system has moved in a promising direction, with police adopting pro-arrest and pro-prosecution policies in an attempt to put the interests of victims at the forefront of their investigation, separating them from their abuser and attempting to secure a conviction. Historically, however, these attempts have been inconsistent at best. Gadd (2012, p504) noted that, based on the Crown Prosecution Service’s (CPS) own 2009 statistics (CPS 2009), only 65% of cases passed to the CPS by the Police

This essay will discuss the accountability of my actions given the scenario, and how I may be held accountable for these actions as a police officer. Will also discuss how these actions are expected by both the police organisation and public. Legislation, New South Wales Police Force (NSWPF) Policies, and academic readings will be used to support this discussion.

English Tort Law and the Importance of Duty of Care in the Public Sector (Based on the Kent v Griffith Case from the year 2000)