DF v Chief Constable of Norfolk Police [2002] EWHC 1738 (Admin) (15 August 2002)

DF v Chief Constable of Norfolk Police [2002] EWHC 1738 (Admin) (15 August 2002)

The correct legal test is whether there is a real and continuing risk to the life of the prisoner if not admitted to a Protected Witness Unit, and whether the authorities have taken all reasonable steps to avoid that risk. On the evidence, the risk to the claimant was assessed as low, with no current intelligence of a specific threat, and the existing protective measures were sufficient. The refusal to admit the claimant to a PWU did not breach Article 2 ECHR or the authorities' duty of care.

Citation
[2002] EWHC 1738 (Admin)
Parties
Claimant: DF; First Defendant: Chief Constable of Norfolk Police; Second Defendant: Secretary of State for the Home Department
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
15 August 2002
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review / Final Judgment After Full Hearing
Outcome
Claim dismissed
Legal Topics
Article 2 ECHR (right to Life), Protected Witnesses, Prisoner Protection, Duty of Care, Judicial Review, Risk Assessment, Police and Prison Service Duties
Public Law Human Rights Law Prison Law Article 2 ECHR (right to Life) Protected Witnesses Prisoner Protection Duty of Care Judicial Review +2 more

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 4 Authorities cited 17 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 6
Sign in to unlock

Parties

DF

Claimant

Chief Constable of Norfolk Police

First Defendant

Secretary of State for the Home Department

Second Defendant

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review / Final Judgment After Full Hearing

Legal Issues

  1. 1 What is the correct legal test for the authorities' duty to protect a prisoner's life under Article 2 ECHR?
  2. 2 Did the police and Prison Service fail in their duty to protect the claimant by refusing admission to a Protected Witness Unit?
  3. 3 Is the claimant at a real and continuing risk to his life if not admitted to a PWU?

Ratio Decidendi

The correct legal test is whether there is a real and continuing risk to the life of the prisoner if not admitted to a Protected Witness Unit, and whether the authorities have taken all reasonable steps to avoid that risk. On the evidence, the risk to the claimant was assessed as low, with no current intelligence of a specific threat, and the existing protective measures were sufficient. The refusal to admit the claimant to a PWU did not breach Article 2 ECHR or the authorities' duty of care.

Court Disposition

Claim dismissed

Orders

  • No order for admission to Protected Witness Unit
  • No further relief granted