Hughes v National Union Mineworkers and Others
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 13 March 1991 |
| Date | 13 March 1991 |
| Court | Queen's Bench Division |
Negligence - Duty of care to whom? - Police - Senior police officer deploying police officers to restore public order during riot - Police officer injured - Whether senior officer owing duty of care to junior officer
The plaintiff, a police officer, was posted in a support unit to assist in the maintenance of public order at a colliery where mineworkers on strike were picketing working miners. The plaintiff formed part of the front line of officers outside the colliery entrance. At one point a vast number of pickets surged forward throwing missiles at the police and then pickets in the crowd struggled with the plaintiff and knocked him backwards with eight to ten pickets falling on him and injuring him. The plaintiff brought an action, inter alia, against the Chief Constable of North Yorkshire for negligence in causing, permitting or requiring the plaintiff to take up an unsupported and unprotected position; failing to implement proper riot control and exercise proper co-ordination and in all the circumstances failing to operate a safe system of work. The Chief Constable applied to have the proceedings struck out as disclosing no reasonable cause of action. The district registrar dismissed the application.
On appeal by the Chief Constable: —
Held, allowing the appeal, that a senior police officer with the task of deploying police officers to control a serious public disorder had to make critical decisions with little or no time for considered thought and in circumstances where individual officers might be in danger of physical injury; that it was not in the public interest that a senior officer should have to make those critical decisions in the knowledge that they might be the basis of a subordinate officer's action in negligence; and that, accordingly, the plaintiff's pleadings alleging negligence on the part of a senior officer when making decisions during a period of serious public disorder disclosed no cause of action (post, p. 680C–F).
The following cases are referred to in the judgment:
Anns v. Merton London Borough Council [
B. v. Islington Health Authority [
Caparo Industries Plc. v. Dickman [
Dorset Yacht Co. Ltd. v. Home Office [
Hill v. Chief Constable of West Yorkshire [
Knightley v. Johns [
Murphy v. Brentwood District Council [
Peabody Donation Fund (Governors of) v. Sir Lindsay Parkinson & Co. Ltd. [
Rigby v. Chief Constable of Northamptonshire [
Rowling v. Takaro Properties Ltd. [
Yuen Kun Yeu v. Attorney-General of Hong Kong [
Appeal from Mr. District Registrar Cliffe.
By a writ dated 28 August 1987 and a statement of claim dated 9 November 1988 the plaintiff, Anthony Hughes, claimed damages for personal injury and consequential losses suffered as a result of an accident on 6 September 1984 arising out of the alleged negligence of the defendant, the Chief Constable of North Yorkshire Police. By an order dated 23 March 1990, Mr. District Registrar Hebbert consolidated the action with similar actions brought by the plaintiff against the National Union of Mineworkers and the National Union of Mineworkers (Durham Area) and the Chief Constable became the third defendant.
On 27 July 1990 Mr. District Registrar Cliffe refused an application by the Chief Constable that the plaintiff's claim against him be struck out as disclosing no reasonable cause of action. The Chief Constable appealed.
The hearing of the appeal was in chambers and judgment given on 13 March; a transcript of the judgment was handed down in open court on 27 March.
The facts are stated in the judgment.
David Gripton for the Chief Constable.
David Hall for the plaintiff.
May J. This is an appeal by the Chief Constable of North Yorkshire from the decision of Mr. District Registrar Cliffe, on 27 July 1990, when he refused to order that the plaintiff's claim against the Chief Constable, who is the third defendant in these consolidated proceedings, be struck out as disclosing no reasonable cause of action.
The plaintiff, Anthony Hughes, was a serving police officer in the Lancashire Constabulary, and the action arises from injuries which he suffered on 6 September 1984 during mineworkers' disturbances at Kellingley Colliery in North Yorkshire. The relevant paragraphs of the statement of claim read:
“2. On 6 September 1984, the plaintiff, in the course of his employment, was posted on the Lancashire Constabulary Support Unit assisting the North Yorkshire Constabulary in their maintenance of the public peace at the Kellingley Colliery, North Yorkshire, where mineworkers were engaged in picketing working miners who were being escorted to work.
“3. The plaintiff formed part of the front line of officers outside the colliery entrance and had taken up a position at the end of a line which then joined at a right-angle a further line of police officers. At about 7 a.m. a loud whistle blew and a vast number of pickets surged forward throwing missiles at the officers and thereafter persons in the surging crowd struggled with the plaintiff and knocked him backwards so that he landed on the ground and approximately eight to ten pickets fell on him, causing him the injuries hereinafter set out.”
It is then alleged in paragraph 4 that the said injury was caused by negligence on the part of the defendant, and the particulars of negligence read:
“The defendant was negligent in that he, his servants or agents (i) caused or permitted or required the plaintiff to take up a position in the police line whereby he was not supported by officers standing behind him. (ii) Failed in time or at all to notice that the plaintiff was effectively unprotected in the situation that occurred, whereby he was pushed from the front with no support from behind. (iii) Failed to organise and/or to implement any or any proper system of riot and disorder control. (iv) Failed to deploy the officers available in a safe and suitable fashion so that the plaintiff was properly protected. (v) Failed to warn the plaintiff that he was not being supported from the rear. (vi) Exposed the plaintiff to a risk of injury. (vii) Failed to exercise any/or any proper co-ordination of the police forces available. (viii) Failed in the matters set out in sub-paragraphs (i) to (vii) above to operate a safe system of work. Failed to take any/or any proper care for the safety of the plaintiff and exposed him to an unnecessary and foreseeable risk of injury which occurred.”
I am told that further and better particulars in answer to a request by other defendants states that the number of mineworkers attacking the police on the day in question was in the order of 4,000.
The action is brought against the Chief Constable pursuant to section 48 of the
“(1) The chief officer of police for any police area shall be liable in respect of torts committed by constables under his direction and control in the performance or purported performance of their functions in like manner as a master is liable in respect of torts committed by his servants in the course of their employment, and accordingly shall in respect of any such tort be treated for all purposes as a joint tortfeasor.”
Mr. Hall, who appeared for the plaintiff, confirmed that this was in essence a claim which alleged that the particular police officer or officers in charge at the colliery on the day deployed the available forces negligently so that the plaintiff was exposed to an excessive and avoidable risk of personal injury. Wider allegations relating to police deployment generally or to police training or organisation are not relied on. It is not, for instance, alleged that there should have been a larger police force than there actually was on duty at this colliery on the day in question. In thus limiting the case, the plaintiff abandoned the main basis, as I understand it, upon which the district registrar decided in favour of the plaintiff, that is that subparagraph (iii) of the particulars of negligence in paragraph 4 of the statement of claim contained an arguable allegation that the Chief Constable, rather than the officer in charge on the day, should have implemented a safer system of riot control.
I observe that, beyond the general assertion that the plaintiff was not personally supported by a second and perhaps third line of officers at the point where he was positioned, the pleading contains no specific allegation of what on the ground the officer in charge should have done to avoid the risk — of personal injury to the plaintiff. It is not, for instance, alleged that any particular different and safer formation should have been used, nor is there said to have...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Darren Rathband and Debbie Essery [appointed under CPR 19.8(b) to represent the Estate of David Rathband Deceased] v The Chief Constable of the Northumbria Constabulary
...policy applicable to claims by members of the public was held to apply equally to claims by police officers. For example, in Hughes v National Union of Mineworkers [1991] 4 All ER 278 May J struck out a claim by a police officer deployed while policing the miners' strike who alleged that th......
-
Appendices To The Rosepark Nursing Home Fatal Accident Inquiry
...authority relied on and that was in relation to actions against the police. The Court quoted with approval dicta by May J in Hughes v NUM 1991 I.C.R669 "in my judgment...as a matter of public policy, if Senior Police Officers charged with the task of deploying what may or may not be an adeq......
-
Mullaney v Chief Constable of the West Midlands
...subject to investigation under the Regulations of 1977 should be in any better position." 33 In Hughes v National Union of Mineworkers [1991] 4 All ER 278 May J struck out as disclosing no cause of action a claim by a police officer who was injured while policing the miners' strike and who......
-
Church of Jesus Christ Latter-Day Saints West Yorkshire Fire & Civil Defence John Munroe (Acrylics) Ltd London Fire & Civil Defence Authority & Others Digital Equipment Company Ltd Hampshire County Council Capital & Counties Hampshire County Council
...of bringing any criminal to justice but to ascertain whether or not they had been competently conducted." 95See also Hughes v. NUM [1991] 4 All ER 278; Alexandrou v. Oxford [1993] 3 All ER 96In Ancell v. McDermot [1993] 3 All ER 355 it was held that the imposition of a duty of care on the ......
-
Policing Flawed Police Investigations: Unravelling the Blanket
...officers suspected ofdisciplinary offences to conduct the investigation expeditiously) and Hughes vNational Union ofMineworkers et al [1991] 4 All ER 278 (QB) (no duty of care owed by senior police officers tosubordinates respecting the deployment of police forces to control serious public ......
-
As Safe as the Bank of England?
...Yorkshire [1989] AC 59, Calveley v Chief Constable of the Merseyside Police [1989] AC 1228, Hughes v National Union of Mineworkers [1991] 4 All ER 278 and Governors of the Peahody Donation Fund v Sir Lindsay Parkinson & Co Ltd [1985] AC 210, reinforce the view that the appellate courts are ......