“Police owe no general duty of care to individuals in crime prevention.”
Jacqueline Hill was the final victim of Peter Sutcliffe (the 'Yorkshire Ripper'). Her mother sued West Yorkshire Police, alleging they had negligently failed to catch Sutcliffe earlier, and that this failure led to her daughter's death. The claim was based on alleged investigative failures during the lengthy manhunt.
Whether police owe a duty of care to individual members of the public to prevent crime or catch criminals, and what policy considerations should limit such liability.
The House of Lords held in favour of the Chief Constable. The police owed no duty of care to individual victims in relation to their crime prevention and investigation functions.
This case is fundamental to understanding public authority liability in tort law. It establishes the immunity of police from negligence claims in their core functions while leaving open liability in exceptional circumstances. The case has been influential in limiting public authority liability generally.
You're reading the free summary of Hill v Chief Constable of West Yorkshire. Create a free account to unlock the full reasoning, the cited authorities and the verbatim judgment — plus structured briefs for 412,000+ UK judgments.
No card required. Free forever.
OSCOLA Citation
Hill v Chief Constable of West Yorkshire [1989] AC 53 (HL)
Multiple official and mirror sources — pick whichever loads cleanly on your network.
Falls back to Google for old citations BAILII catalogues separately
Common Room
0 comments · About the Common Room →
No comments yet — start the discussion.
Voted-best comments help future students and feed Caselaw's AI study tools.