Court of Appeal

Published March 17, 2008

Smith v Chief Constable of Sussex Police

While it was not reasonable to expect the police to answer in damages to every individual whose life or health might have been spared or saved by more competent police work, where someone’s life or safety had been so firmly placed in their hands as to make it incumbent on them to take at least elementary steps to protect it, unexcused neglect to do so could sound in damages if harm resulted.

The Court of Appeal (Lord Justice Pill, Lord Justice Sedley and Lord Justice Rimer) so held in a reserved judgment on February 5, 2008, allowing the appeal of Stephen Smith, against Judge Simpkiss who, in Brighton County Court struck out his claim for negligence against the Chief Constable of Sussex Police.

Mr Smith had complained to the police that a Gareth Jeffrey had been threatening to kill him, but the police did nothing to prevent serious injury to him. Jeffrey was arrested for attempted murder and was convicted of making threats to kill and causing grievous bodily harm with intent; he would have been guilty of murder had the claimant died.

LORD JUSTICE SEDLEY said that there should be some point at which police officers, once alerted, could not escape responsibility; their police status would require them, unlike the ordinary passer-by, to do something.

Times Recommends

• The best legal yarns this Christmas
• Legal school 'earned £1m by exploiting bar course'
• Axe may fall on 5,000 more City lawyers