Jump to content
Search In
  • More options...
Find results that contain...
Find results in...
jimmyriddle

"The police do not generally owe a duty to members of the public in the detection and prevention of crime"

Recommended Posts

jimmyriddle

This is basically a mirror image of the US Supreme Court decision in very similar circumstances in 1981 (Warren vs DC).

I know the general consensus on here is a lot of scoffing and very hard left when it comes to self-defence, but I just can't help but think: "if they owe me no duty of care to protect me, then why are my rights STILL restricted? Either take some actual responsibility or allow me the means to protect myself". Yeah yeah I already know what you're going to say on that point...

http://www.standard.co.uk/news/london/murdered-schoolgirls-family-lose-case-against-police-a3544966.html

Arsema’s mother, Tsehaynesh Medihani, and relatives sued the Met for £100,000 in damages. They argued that Arsema would be alive if police had dealt with Nugusse and acted to protect her.

 

 

 

Edited by Techie1
Copyright - one paragraph only, fix link

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Radman

Its a freedom issue and one that likely would have a case in the supreme court.

Ultimately you're responsible for your own protection and wellbeing but you arent permitted to effectively defend yourself from attack.

Whilst I would never want to see a 2nd Ammendment in the UK I do believe the government needs to acknowledge the world we live in and accept that people have a basic human right to self defence.

If I could legally give my wife pepper spray for when she starts work on a night shift and walks from her car to the hospital and back you bet I would... Just as I believe most of us here would aswell.

Edited by Radman

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
obsidian_eclipse

It seems so alien to us here and we always seem to make comparisons to the USA or envisage 'guns' as being the only methods for self defence. I have family living in Europe and theres not this finger wagging, outrage or decent into the apocalypse when someone pops into the local store to buy a taser, baton or tin of pepper spray. People who generally commit crime use more vicious weapons and it's non too different from here in their choice either.

Sent from my D2303 using Tapatalk

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Zulu 22

We are not the USA and its Constitution and Laws have no bearing on this country.  As for the topic title, nonsense. We exist, and it our duty to protect Life and Property, and to Prevent and Detect Crime. The Judge in the case sated of Nugusse obviously did not know the definition of a Constable and his/her sworn duty.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Member of Public

What a waste of a young life, what chance did this poor girl stand?

I've been saying pretty much the same thing in regards to self defence on the stop and search knife crime thread, however the majority on that thread seem to disagree. 

@jimmyriddle Aren't you the user who  was debating this issue of self defence tools on here a while back? I recognise your picture. In the past I was more against the idea than for it, however I've re-thought my stance (due to all this talk of knives and violent crime in the media) and I now agree that defensive sprays and other none lethal aids should be legalised upon licence in the UK, and this article has strengthened my view. You can't deny people access to potentially life preserving things whilst at the same time, tell them they're responsible for their own safety. This judge has started a journey down a rocky road. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Milankovitch
23 minutes ago, Zulu 22 said:

As for the topic title, nonsense. We exist, and it our duty to protect Life and Property, and to Prevent and Detect Crime. The Judge in the case sated of Nugusse obviously did not know the definition of a Constable and his/her sworn duty.

The judge in this case is probably mindful of Hill v. Chief Constable of West Yorkshire [1989] which led to what is called Hill immunity in cases of negligence brought against police in the civil courts. It basically found that the police do not owe a duty of care to any individual rather than the public at large. It goes on to list all manner of unintended consequences should the police be held to have a duty of care to all individuals. It would be disastrous if the police were found to owe a duty of care to all individuals.

 

Subsequent cases have reaffirmed the principles in Hill although it is worth pointing out that the scope of Hill has been narrowed somewhat.

19 minutes ago, PC Wannabe said:

This judge has started a journey down a rocky road. 

This judge has simply used previous decisions to reach their decision in this case. The law hasn't changed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Zulu 22

The law has not changed and, neither have the principles of Policing, Protect life and property. At the moment in Manchester we might have a different view to you. When asked to put yourself on the line; would you?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
bensonby

Hill is an interesting case as it essentially asserts that as a matter of public policy if we had a duty to every individual to protect them then every victim of crime would be able to have a claim in negligence: it cannot be right that, for example, every burglary victim could sue the police if they were burgled. As Milkovitch rightly points out the scope of Hill has narrowed somewhat in recent years - notably in Human Rights Cases where Articles 2 and 3 have been engaged. With regards to Article 2 then the case of Osman asserts that if there is a real and credible threat to the life of another then we have a duty to intervene - hence 'Osman warnings'. But their scope is necessarily quite narrow. Article 3 has been the case of debate in the Supreme Court recently (and we are waiting for a final decision) in the case of DSD and NBV: the appeal court has held that the state's positive duty to intervene to prevent inhuman or degrading treatment extends to the investigation of sexual offences. This is something that the Home Secretary and the Met Police have been arguing against for various public policy reasons: obviously I'm grossly over-simplifying.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
bensonby
10 minutes ago, Zulu 22 said:

The law has not changed and, neither have the principles of Policing, Protect life and property. At the moment in Manchester we might have a different view to you. When asked to put yourself on the line; would you?

That's not what the Hill case or this argument is about at all.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Milankovitch
The law has not changed and, neither have the principles of Policing, Protect life and property. At the moment in Manchester we might have a different view to you. When asked to put yourself on the line; would you?

Nice little soundbite but it's basically irrelevant to the point at hand.

It's clear that the police do not owe a duty of care to all persons as individuals and nothing you've said has rebutted that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Radman
10 hours ago, Zulu 22 said:

We are not the USA and its Constitution and Laws have no bearing on this country.  As for the topic title, nonsense. We exist, and it our duty to protect Life and Property, and to Prevent and Detect Crime. The Judge in the case sated of Nugusse obviously did not know the definition of a Constable and his/her sworn duty.

The US is based on common law principles, right to self defence and bear arms has always existed in the UK until fairly recently.

60 years ago there were very few restrictions on firearm ownership as an example... Licencing and regulation is fairly modern.

Frankly I believe governments have this overbearing need to control and nanny people in the UK and we have grown accustomed to it, we the police havent helped matters either because lets face it we have encouraged the idea that people cannot use force against others even when perfectly lawful reasons exist to do so and have often taken unreasonable action against people who have lawfully used force...

This is an area I believe the US gets right over Britain, rather than assuming guilt on the part of a home owner who defends family and property from an intruder who had no lawful reason to be inside the house to begin with, US authorities will take a common sense approach inline with public opinion... In Britain we assume guilt, arrest individuals and carry out unnecessarily lengthy investigations into theoretical wrong doing when its fairly obvious who was the perpetrator, completely alienating public trust in the process. The US system of policing is also geared up to be far more locally accountable to the town/city/parish it serves when compared to our county wide model which I dont believe is much accountable at all to local people.

This mindset extends to even legitimate agencies and organisations in law - for example, I remember having a lengthy debate with a Met Trainer on the old PS.com forums where he relished the idea of arresting, charging and prosecuting a parks officer with a local authority for carrying a lawfully held baton even though that officer was a sworn in constable under local authority legislation - if caught outside their defined jurisdiction - why? 

Because he could... Because the police historically had this mindset of not sharing their percieved sole monopoly on state sanctioned force... Its frankly this mindset that has led every other organisation that should be taking more robust and proactive approaches in protecting their interests to turn around and say "nope thats the polices job because we cant legally do that..."

The deflective, frustrating and nannying society we now live in has some about because of these idiotic decisions... Its all been our own making.

Edited by Radman

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Zulu 22

We have not had the right to bear arms since the Pistols Act 1903, and all firearms came under the control of the Police in the 1920 Firearms Act, so it is a little longer than 60 years. The US Common Law and Legislation has no relevance to this Country. What I would agree with is that the Police have been far too ready to pander to Political Correctness in prosecuting people for defending themselves, or property. 

Stated case may side that we do not owe a duty of care to every person, however that can be a play on words. When we are sworn into office we swear to protect Life and Property etc and that means protecting all human life, so under our legal oath we are sworn under the law to protect life. Perhaps the Judges never considered the Oath made by every warranted Police Officer.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Radman
24 minutes ago, Zulu 22 said:

We have not had the right to bear arms since the Pistols Act 1903, and all firearms came under the control of the Police in the 1920 Firearms Act, so it is a little longer than 60 years. The US Common Law and Legislation has no relevance to this Country. What I would agree with is that the Police have been far too ready to pander to Political Correctness in prosecuting people for defending themselves, or property. 

Stated case may side that we do not owe a duty of care to every person, however that can be a play on words. When we are sworn into office we swear to protect Life and Property etc and that means protecting all human life, so under our legal oath we are sworn under the law to protect life. Perhaps the Judges never considered the Oath made by every warranted Police Officer.

US sytem is very much a carbon copy of what was our legal system - numerous similarities.

But even under the 1920s firearms act the licencing process wasnt stringent or anywhere near as restrictive as modern incarnations of the act.

No matter how you look at it Zulu its been a slow erosion of liberty over a period of time... I used to be very much in favor of the state having the monopoly on violence etc but having seen the wrongs various official bodies have caused over the years im now very wary of handing over many more rights, im a police officer for heavens sake.

Freedom of expression/speech as another point has massively been curtailed thanks to various pieces of legislation which is dangerous in my opinion-  a decade ago anyone who broached the topic of immigration and integration of people within our society (or lack of integration as may be the case) was automatically shouted down and branded a racist until of course it got to a stage where the argument could no longer be ignored... Politicians have now acknowledged that in the name of political correctness things did go too far. Censorship and curtails on expression/individuals rights seems to be a deeply ingrained belief on the far/fringe left.

Coming from a working class background I find myself torn politically as I have alot more in line with libertarian soft right than the overly socialist left.

Edited by Radman

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Zulu 22

It is not an erosion of liberty at all, it is placing regulations over lethal weapons.   Even in the 1903 Act and 1920 Act Chief Constables vetted and issued certificates only when satisfied that the person applying was bone fide and responsible.  The Regulations have been tightened many times since, after incidents have occurred showing that greater control was necessary.  This often penalised the genuine gun owners.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Radman
1 minute ago, Zulu 22 said:

It is not an erosion of liberty at all, it is placing regulations over lethal weapons.   Even in the 1903 Act and 1920 Act Chief Constables vetted and issued certificates only when satisfied that the person applying was bone fide and responsible.  The Regulations have been tightened many times since, after incidents have occurred showing that greater control was necessary.  This often penalised the genuine gun owners.

It is an erosion.

We once had a right and now we dont because the state doesn't trust its subjects.

Arguably many of the incidents that occurred were failings in the ability of the police to effectively carry out its duty under the firearms legislation.

Once those rights are gone thats it... They dont usually come back.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×
×
  • Create New...