Chief Constable of Northamptonshire v Woodcock [2025] EWCA Civ 13: The Boundaries of Duties Owed by Public Authorities in Negligence

The Court of Appeal has handed down judgment in Chief Constable of Northamptonshire Police v Woodcock [2025] EWCA Civ 13. The case provides useful guidance on the extent of police liability in negligence and claims against public authorities.

It is one of the first cases to apply the recent Supreme Court decision of Tindall v Chief Constable of Thames Valley Police [2024] UKSC 33. The Court heard conjoined appeals arising out of two matters.

 

The first matter is the case of Ms. Woodcock, who was attacked and seriously injured by her former partner. There had been several complaints made to the police about threats of violence, so much that a police officer had remained outside Ms. Woodcock’s house for much of the previous night. A neighbour had contacted the police when the partner was spotted loitering outside the house. When Ms. Woodcock left the house, she was immediately attacked and seriously injured. Ms. Woodcock had brought proceedings against the Chief Constable of Northamptonshire Police alleging that the police owed her a duty of care, including a duty to warn of imminent danger.

The claim was originally dismissed by HHJ Murdoch, and then successfully appealed to Ritchie J. The Chief Constable now appeals against the decision of Ritchie J.

 

The second matter on appeal, referred to by the Court as the cases of CJ and others, involved five victims of sexual offences. A man, referred to as MP, had been sentenced to a total of 10 years’ imprisonment for two offences of rape of children, 13 offences of sexual assault on a child under 13, and 25 offences of making or possessing indecent images of children. A number of criticisms were made about the police’s early investigations into MP and the possession of indecent images of children. This investigation was prior to any contact offences; it was alleged that further steps should have been taken to investigate material on a seized laptop and that more senior officers should have been assigned to the case.

Proceedings had been brought against the Chief Constable of Wiltshire Constabulary, alleging that the police had breached a duty of care owed to them to protect them against MP, which could have avoided any contact offences occurring. Damages were claimed for in negligence or alternatively for breach of rights under articles 3 and 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights.

The claims were originally dismissed by Martin Spencer J. The five parties now appeal against that decision.

 

Tindall

At the time of the previous hearings, the Supreme Court judgment in Tindall had not yet been handed down. The judgment given by Lord Leggatt and Lord Burrows, with whom Lord Hodge, Lord Briggs and Lady Simler agreed, provided much needed clarity about the relationship between public authorities and the tort of negligence. In particular:

“…[It] is now firmly established (or re-established) that the liability of public authorities in the tort of negligence to pay compensation is governed by the same principles that apply to private individuals. Many public authorities – notably, protective and rescue services such as the police force and fire brigade – have statutory powers and duties to protect the public from harm. But failure to do so, however blameworthy, does not make the authority liable in the tort of negligence to pay compensation to an injured person unless, applying the same principles, a private individual would have been so liable. That means that to recover such compensation a claimant generally needs to show that the public authority did not just fail to protect the claimant from harm but actually caused harm to the claimant.”

 

Recognising the severance of public duty and tortious liability is essential. While a police officer may well have acted in serious dereliction of their duty, they may not be in breach of a duty of care in the tort of negligence.

In considering cases of police officers failing to protect, a number of exceptions were recognised in Tindall, including the so-called “interference principle”. The principle stipulates that a breach of duty may arise where the police could reasonably have foreseen that their attendance or interference in a matter would displace the efforts of others in seeking to prevent or avoid harm.

 

Woodcock Appeal Outcome

The Court of Appeal in Woodcock rejected the argument that failing to warn Ms. Woodcock constituted an exception to the general rules outlined in Tindall. It found no evidence that the police had explicitly assumed responsibility or that their actions displaced the neighbour’s ability to warn Ms. Woodcock. The Court emphasised that while the police’s failure was deeply regrettable, it did not meet the threshold for imposing a narrow and specific duty to warn Ms. Woodcock.

Liability was therefore avoided and the appeal was allowed.

 

CJ and Others Appeal Outcome

The Court reiterated that the police are not liable for failing to protect individuals unless they have either created the danger, assumed a specific responsibility, or acted in a way that made matters worse. The failings of the police in the investigations were omissions and failures to act and could not properly be characterised as positive acts which made matters worse. The general rule that there is no liability for negligent omissions to act therefore applies.

It was also found that the information known during the investigation into the indecent images on the laptop was not sufficient to engage article 3: The images found on the laptop were not of the most serious kind and a generalised future risk of contact offences would not satisfy the requirement of a real and immediate risk of ill-treatment.

The appeal was therefore dismissed in relation to both common law and article 3.

 

Conclusion

The judgment in Woodcock re-affirms the established boundaries of police and public authority duties in negligence, offering valuable guidance for future claims involving failure to warn, omissions and serious dereliction of duty or operational breakdown.

For civil practitioners, it serves as a reminder of the interplay between the tort of negligence, public authority duties, and human rights protections. The decision in Tindall will likely remain the seminal authority on exceptions which may apply to omissions on the part of public authorities for some time to come.

 

Analysis and review produced by Michael Williams who is a Pupil at Farrar’s Building. Daniel accepts instructions in all of Chambers’ practice areas.  For further information, please contact his Clerking Team.

 

---

• Share article:

---