1. IN THE COURT OF APPEAL
BETWEEN:
LEDWORTH POLICE FORCE
Appellant
-AND-
LEYMAN AND FRY
Respondents
SKELETON ARGUMENT ON BEHALF OF THE APPELLANT
GROUND (1)
Authorities
Hill v Chief Constable of Yorkshire (1988) 2 WLR 1049
Smith v Chief Constable of Sussex Police [2008] 3 W.L.R. 593
Osman v UK (1998) 29 EHRR 245
Ground of Appeal
The Appellant did not owe the claimants (Jake Leyman and Philip Fry) a duty of care, in which
they were allegedly in breach of by not providing adequate protection to Pat Leyman (“the
victim”).
Submissions
1. Following the House of Lords, in Hill v West Yorkshire Police, the police do not owe a duty
of care to protect members of the public at no special or particular risk of harm therefore the
Appellant is not liable for damages arising from the victim’s murder.
2. A common law negligence claim should not be allowed against the Appellant in the interest
of the wider community. The majority in Smith v Chief Constable of Sussex Police should be
followed, and Lord Bingham’s “liability principle” should disregarded.
3. The Appellant did not fail to provide “adequate protection” to the victim according the
guidance provided by the Commission in Osman v UK.
Conclusion
No duty should imposed on the core functions of the police, therefore the decision to award
damages should be reversed.
Mustafa Khan, 2 February 2015