Liability of Criminal Acts of Third Parties

• General rules of liability for third parties


  • Generally a person is not liable for the acts or omissions of a third party• no liability in delict for omissions• Four factors• A has assumed responsibility for B / assumed responsibility to protect B from the danger• A has done something that prevents C from protecting B from the danger• A has a special level of control over the danger• A's status creates an obligation to protect B from the danger - e.g. A is B's employer
•  Mitchell v Glasgow City Council [2009] 1 AC 874


  a duty to warn another person that he is at risk of loss, injury or damage as a result of the criminal act of a third party will arise only where the person who is said to be under that duty has by his words or conduct assumed responsibility for the safety of the person who is at risk" per Lord Hope
• The Police and Fire Reform (Scotland) Act 2012


  s20 Constables: general duties• It is the duty of a constable—• (a) to prevent and detect crime,• (b) to maintain order,• (c) to protect life and property,• Are the public entitled to the police's protection?
• Hill v Chief Constable of West Yorkshire [1989] AC 53


  They claimed that the police had been negligent, as their investigation into the serial killer took too long.Police have to protect the general public however it is too difficult to protect every single individual.
• Smith v Chief Constable of Sussex [2008] EWCA Civ 39

  • Former partner made threats against them.The claimant made a report to the police about thisThe police investigated thisThe former partner then followed out the threat and attacked him with a hammerIt was held the proximity wasnt there, and the police were not liable for the former partner's actions.
• Michael v Chief Constable of South Wales [2015] UKSC 2

  •  Partner was outside threatening to kill her.The neighboring authority took this call, and marked it as a high priority.It was transferred to the correct force, however they did not mark this call as a high priority.3 hours later the police turned up and she had been murderedThere was not the necessary proximity, and the police were not liable.
• (Sherratt v Chief Constable of Greater Manchester [2018] EWHC 1746 QB


  The police owed a duty of care to a woman who had committed suicide after the woman's mother had made a 999 call expressing concerns about her daughter's welfare. The police had assumed responsibility for the woman's welfare because of the 999 call handler's assurances to the mother that officers would attend the daughter's property and arrange for her transfer to hospital, and because the mother had relied on that assurance to her detriment.
• Chief constable of essex v transport arendonk bvba


  Police were under a duty of care for the lorry and its belonging after presuming responsibility for it by not allowing the owner to take it back.They failed to protect the lorry.
• Van Colle v Chief Constable of Hertfordshire [2008] UKHL 50


  The test of article 2:Did the police know or ought to know of a real and immediate threat to an identified individual by the criminal act of a third party?This case failed that test, as the murderer was an 'unpredictable person'
• Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis v DSD [2018] UKSC11


  ladies who had been subject to sexual abuse for six-year period-reported it to the police and the police they alleged had failed to investigate appropriately, which meant that the activity went on longer.-they said that this infringed their right under Article three, and the court agreed with them.-the court said, the police have a duty to investigate serious crime.
• Dorset Yacht Co v Home Office [1970] AC1004


  Borstal officers owe a duty to take such care as is reasonable in all the circumstances with a view to preventing the boys under their control from causing damage to private property
• thomson v scottish ministers 2011


  Thomson against Scottish ministers involved a young lady who was murdered by a prisoner who was on leave.And here Thompson was the mother of the victim. And she brought a case against the prison service for their negligenceThere was no relationship with proximity. So the prison service weren't found liable to. The mother of the poor lady who was murdered.
• Kaizer v Scottish Ministers (2017)


  a prisoner was threatened with violence, and he reported the threat of violence to a prison officer. And it appears that the prison officer tried to deal with the threat and relatively informal way, rather than falling all the correct channels.He sued the prison service for negligence alleging that they had failed in their duty to him to protect him from violence.the court said they didn't deal with things properly. They didn't adequately protect the prisoner. He suffered harm.The prison service was liable
• Collins v First Quench Retailing Ltd 2003 SLT1220


  An off licence manager would be awarded damages where she suffered depression and post traumatic stress disorder following an armed robbery at the premises when she was working alone where some form of attack on staff was foreseeable given the shop's history and where the employers' failure to take reasonable care and introduce double manning materially increased the risk of attack.
• Maloco v Littlewoods Organisation Ltd 1987SC (HL) 37


  Cinema was burned down by intruders and burnt some of neighbouring buildingsDuty of care was not owed as the cinema owners did not present any obvious fire risks and this was not their fault