Suicide while in Police Custody
| DOI | http://doi.org/10.1177/002201839906300627 |
| Published date | 01 December 1999 |
| Date | 01 December 1999 |
| Subject Matter | House of Lords |
House
of
Lords
Suicide while in Police Custody
Reeves
v
MPC
[1999] 3 WLR 363
Aprospective defendant was charged with credit fraud and was also
being investigated for handling stolen vehicles. On being remanded in
custody, he attempted to commit suicide by strangling himself with his
belt in a cell in
the
court house. Three
months
later, he again attempted
to commit suicide in the same way in the cell of
another
court house,
which he
had
had to attend. At the police station to which he was taken
after the second attempt, he was seen by a police doctor,
who
found no
other evidence of mental disturbance,
but
who
gave instructions that he
should nevertheless be 'frequently observed'. That same afternoon, he
was seen
through
the open wicket hatch of the cell to be lying on his
bed. Afew minutes later, he had hanged himself with his shirt by tying
it to the knob on
the
outside of the hatch, which the police had left open.
The joint executrices of his estate sued the police in negligence,
the
alleged negligence being the leaving of the hatch open, so that the knob
was available as a means of assisting the act of suicide.
Section 1(1) of the Law Reform (Contributory Negligence) Act 1945
enacts that
when
aperson suffers damage partly of his own fault and
partly of that of another, his fault shall
not
defeat his claim in respect of
the damages,
but
they may be reduced to the
extent
which the court
regards as equitable. For the purpose of this rule, it is provided in s 4 that
'fault' is negligence, breach of statutory duty or
other
act or omission
giving rise to an action in tort.
When
sued in negligence, the police called in aid the doctrine of
novus
actus
interveniens
and
that of contributory negligence, although it was
conceded that
the
police were in breach of their duty of care to prevent,
as far as was possible, the suicide of
any
person in their care. The judge
dismissed
the
action, as he accepted
the
first of those defences, since
the
prisoner's suicide while of sound mind was an intervening act which
was the cause of the damage. He also found
that
his contributory act was
100% to blame for
the
damage, which was
how
he would assess
any
contribution
under
the 1945 Act. By a majority,
the
Court of Appeal
allowed
the
appeal, holding that the duty of care owed by the police to
aperson in their custody existed, whatever his mental state; and, since
the deliberate act of suicide was
the
very act in relation to which their
duty existed in these circumstances (and- of which they had been
warned by the previous attempts and recently reminded by the doctor),
it could
not
be regarded as a
novus
actus
interveniens.
The Court of Appeal
declined to reduce the damages on the ground of contributory negli-
gence. The issues before the House of Lords were:
1.
whether
adeliberate act by
the
person in custody could be
570
To continue reading
Request your trial