An Informer v A Chief Constable

An Informer v A Chief Constable

Police owe a duty of care to a CHIS for physical safety and wellbeing arising from provision of information about others, but not for economic loss or protection from investigation of suspected criminal conduct. The Hill principle (police immunity) applies to acts done in course of investigating crime, and public...

Source-derived case information.

Parties
Appellant: AN INFORMER; Respondent: A CHIEF CONSTABLE
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
29 February 2012
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Judgment on Appeal
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Duty of Care, Police Immunity, Confidential Informants, Economic Loss, Assumption of Responsibility, Negligence, Breach of Contract
Tort Law Contract Law Police Law Duty of Care Police Immunity Confidential Informants Economic Loss Assumption of Responsibility +2 more

Source-derived case record

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 5 Authorities cited 29 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

AN INFORMER

Appellant

A CHIEF CONSTABLE

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Judgment on Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether police owe a contractual or tortious duty of care to a confidential informant (CHIS) to safeguard him from economic loss
  2. 2 Scope of police duty of care to informers
  3. 3 Application of Hill principle (police immunity) to informers

Ratio Decidendi

Police owe a duty of care to a CHIS for physical safety and wellbeing arising from provision of information about others, but not for economic loss or protection from investigation of suspected criminal conduct. The Hill principle (police immunity) applies to acts done in course of investigating crime, and public policy precludes extending duty to economic interests where it conflicts with crime investigation. Failure to disclose CHIS status in restraint order application was troubling but does not create a tortious duty for economic loss.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed