What is the ratio in Smith v Chief Constable of Sussex?

The ratio is that police generally owe no duty of care to individual victims of crime, even where they have failed to respond adequately to requests for protection.

What did the court decide in Smith v Chief Constable of Sussex?

The House of Lords decided that no duty of care was owed to the murdered prosecution witness and the negligence claim failed.

Why is Smith v Chief Constable of Sussex important for tort law?

It reinforced limitations on police liability and clarified that public policy considerations generally prevent duties of care arising between police and individual members of the public.

What is the ratio in Smith v Chief Constable of Sussex?

The ratio is that police generally owe no duty of care to individual victims of crime, even where they have failed to respond adequately to requests for protection.

What did the court decide in Smith v Chief Constable of Sussex?

The House of Lords decided that no duty of care was owed to the murdered prosecution witness and the negligence claim failed.

Why is Smith v Chief Constable of Sussex important for tort law?

It reinforced limitations on police liability and clarified that public policy considerations generally prevent duties of care arising between police and individual members of the public.

Tort1 min read

Smith v Chief Constable of Sussex

[2008] UKHL 50House of Lords2008

Cite this case in OSCOLA →All Tort cases →

“Police owe no general duty of care to crime victims despite inadequate response.”

Facts

Van Colle was due to testify as a prosecution witness in a criminal trial. Despite threats from the defendant and requests for protection, police provided inadequate security. Van Colle was murdered by the defendant before the trial.

Issues

Whether police owed a duty of care to a prosecution witness who had requested protection and was subsequently murdered by the defendant.

Held

The House of Lords held that no duty of care was owed. The claim against the police failed.

Significance

This case reinforced the Osman principle and clarified the limited circumstances in which police might owe duties of care. It remains a leading authority on public authority liability in tort law.

Read the full brief — free

You're reading the free summary of Smith v Chief Constable of Sussex. Create a free account to unlock the full reasoning, the cited authorities and the verbatim judgment — plus structured briefs for 412,000+ UK judgments.

Create free account Already have one? Sign in

No card required. Free forever.

OSCOLA Citation

Smith v Chief Constable of Sussex Police [2008] UKHL 50, [2009] 1 AC 225

TortNegligenceDuty of CarePolice LiabilityPublic Authority Liability

Read the full judgment elsewhere

Multiple official and mirror sources — pick whichever loads cleanly on your network.

LLBGDL

More Tort cases

Jaqueline Casey & Ors v Environment Agency

[2026] EWHC 178 (KB)

Lepani Secake & Ors v Shared Services Connected Ltd

[2026] EWHC 1022 (KB)

Salford City Council v Fortis Developments Ltd & Ors

[2026] EWHC KB 702

Truter v Secretary of State for Justice

[2026] EWHC KB 825

CCC v Sheffield Teaching Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust

[2026] UKSC 5

Bromcom Computers Plc v Arbor Education Partners Ltd & Ors

[2026] EWHC KB 379

This case is reproduced verbatim from the public judgment published by The National Archives under the UK Government's Open Government Licence v3.0. If you appear in this case and believe it should not be published — for example because your conviction was quashed on appeal, you have statutory anonymity, or for other privacy reasons — request removal here.