Reilly v Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis

JurisdictionEngland & Wales
Judgment Date22 April 2008
Date22 April 2008
CourtQueen's Bench Division (Administrative Court)
Neutral Citation:

[2008] EWHC 2217 (QB)

Court and Reference:

High Court, Queen's Bench Division, CC/2007/PTA/0607

Judge:

MacDuff J

Reilly
and
Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis
Appearances:

A Metzer (instructed by JR Jones &Co) for R; C Hallin (instructed by Metropolitan Police Legal Services) for the Commissioner

Issue:

Whether a claim against the police in negligence for failing to deal with complaints of harassment should have been struck out on the grounds that it was clear that no duty of care was owed

Facts:

On R's pleaded case she had made many complaints to the police about harassment by a man called W who had a criminal record and a drug habit and who was, for a period, a tenant in her accommodation, but frequently had to wait for a long time before the police arrived, if they arrived at all; she complained that her complaints were not taken seriously and nothing was done by the police to arrest and prosecute W or to prevent his continued campaign of harassment. This caused R distress, anxiety and possible injury, and she brought proceedings against the Commissioner for damages for negligence. The Commissioner applied to strike out the claims and succeeded in part, but the Judge allowed part of the claim to continue. The Commissioner appealed.

Judgment:

1. In 2007 the claimant, Caroline Reilly, commenced proceedings against the defendant. The claim form pleaded breaches of duty of care and negligence. There were in fact 2 Particulars of Claim, which HHJ Collins named "Particulars of Claim A" and "Particulars of Claim B". Particulars of Claim A ran from paras 1 to 56 and Particulars of Claim B from 1 to 76. The defendant applied to strike out these claims and the strike-out application came before HHJ Collins at the Central London County Court on 31 August 2007. He struck out the whole of B and a substantial part of A, but he refused to strike out paras 1 to 29 of Particulars of Claim A. I note in parentheses that these were home-made Particulars of Claim by Miss Reilly, then a litigant in person. She is, however, represented before me.

2. It is against that refusal to strike out paras 1 to 29 that the appellant defendant, the Commissioner of Police for the Metropolis, appeals. It is the appellant's case that the claim is unsustainable in law and that it should have been struck out.

3. The judge summarised the claim and that part of the claim which he retained. The remaining non struck-out part of the claim can be summarised in this way.

4. The claimant had made many complaints to the police, principally at Ilford, about harassment by a man called Peter Webb, a man with a criminal record and a drug habit. She frequently had to wait for a long time before the police arrived, if they arrived at all. They did not take her complaints seriously. She was frequently told to stay at the premises until a police officer arrived, but on occasions no police officer did arrive. Nothing was done by the police either to arrest and prosecute Mr Webb, or to prevent his continued campaign of harassment against her, causing distress, anxiety and possible injury.

5. Judge Collins summarised it very briefly in his judgment thus:

"Miss Reilly, who has addressed me very courteously and sympathetically, was the victim for a significant period of time of harassment by a man named Webb. She gives details of his extremely unpleasant conduct over a period of time, particularly when he was a tenant in her accommodation. There is no doubt that on the basis of these allegations, which I accept for the purpose of this application, Mr Webb committed a number of criminal offences which made Miss Reilly's life particularly unpleasant and uncomfortable. She complained to the police about Mr Webb's conduct. Essentially her complaint in paras 1 to 29 is that, for whatever reason, because they were incompetent, whether they were just not interested, whether they were overworked, whether they made mistakes or whatever, the police, in particular various named officers of the Commissioner, failed to exercise proper care and diligence in investigating her claim that she had been the victim...

To continue reading

Request your trial

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT