Police forces face a multi-million-pound bill for establishing witness protection schemes after senior judges ruled yesterday that they are legally bound to ensure the safety of witnesses. Sir Anthony Clarke, the Master of the Rolls, found that the right to life enshrined in the Human Rights Act required police forces to protect vulnerable witnesses in criminal cases.

He dismissed an appeal by Hertfordshire Constabulary against an earlier High Court ruling that it was liable for the death of Giles van Colle, 25, an optician, who was murdered by a former employee against whom he was to give evidence in a fraud trial.

The judgment has implications for police forces across Britain, many of which have begun rewriting their witness protection policies because of the case.

The City of London force has published a new policy stating that the case established “an extra duty of care towards members of the public who are witnesses for the Crown”.

South Yorkshire Police also cite the judgment as creating a legal requirement “to protect the right to life of a witness”.

Irwin van Colle, the murdered man’s father, has been approached by other forces to address seminars as they prepare new policies and train officers.

Before the ruling, the Association of Chief Police Officers said that a national witness protection programme would cost £22 million.

Mr van Colle was shot dead with a silver bullet by Daniel Brougham as he sat in his car outside his practice in Mill Hill, northwest London, in November 2000. Brougham is serving a life sentence for murder.

Brougham had threatened to kill Mr van Colle and his family and had set fire to a car belonging to another witness. Mr van Colle reported the incidents to Hertfordshire Constabulary but the force took no action to protect him.

After his death the force disciplined Detective Constable David Ridley, the officer handling the case.

Sir Anthony, in a unanimous Court of Appeal ruling with Lord Justice Sedley and Lord Justice Lloyd, said that measures should have been taken to ensure Mr van Colle’s safety.

He said: “They [the police] should have known that there was a real risk to his life and that the risk was and would remain immediate until the date of Brougham’s trial. In these circumstances they should have done all that could reasonably have been expected of them to minimise or avoid the risk.”

The ruling added: “If the police had acted as they should have done it was highly likely that his [Brougham’s] bail would have been revoked, that he would have been remanded in custody and that Giles would not have been murdered.”

They added: “For these reasons we conclude that . . . the police infringed Giles’s right to life under article 2 of the Convention [of Human Rights] and that Giles lost his life as a result.”

The court, however, ruled that compensation for the van Colle family should be cut from £50,000 to £25,000.

Further litigation against forces is likely to follow but the judges said there was no danger that the ruling would “open the floodgates to baseless claims”.

Mr van Colle’s father said that the judges had changed the law. “Witnesses, as a class, will have their welfare better served than before, which will help to protect the lives of many from ongoing inimidation in the future.”

Corinne van Colle, the victim’s mother, said her family was appalled that Hertfordshire Constabulary had fought the case through the courts at huge expense.

“We have suffered more grief and despair since November 22, 2000, than you can possibly imagine. The never-ending pain continues as we spend the rest of our lives without our precious son, knowing this heinous crime could, and should, have been prevented.”

A spokesman for Hertfordshire Constabulary said that it had been in the public interest to contest the case. “The appeal was not a personal battle with the van Colle family. We sym-pathise with the loss arising from the murder of their son, and want to repeat our regret over any failings on our part.

“However, if the case was left untested, then there would have been a lack of clarity and stability in this area of the law, which could encourage unmeritorious claims from unworthy claimants. We are now carefully considering the decision of the Court of Appeal and any further implications.”

Explore Law

• Columnists

• Law Panel

• Law Reports

• Student Law

Times Recommends

• Linklaters trounces rivals as UK's biggest firm
• Clifford Chance profits plunge 37 per cent
• Casual drinkers hit by spread of 'dry' zones