Connolly V Police Service of Northern Ireland [2006] NIQB 98 (18 January 2006)

Connolly V Police Service of Northern Ireland [2006] NIQB 98 (18 January 2006)

The facts alleged in the statement of claim, assumed to be true, do not disclose any special ingredient or characteristic that would create a duty of care owed by the police to the plaintiff in the conduct of the investigations. The plaintiff's status as a police officer, informant, or employee does not distinguish him from victims or witnesses in prior cases. The core principle from Hill and Brooks applies, and no reasonable cause of action is disclosed.

Citation
[2006] NIQB 98
Parties
Plaintiff/respondent: Brian Connolly; Applicant/defendant: Chief Constable of the Police Service of Northern Ireland
Jurisdiction
Northern Ireland
Judgment Date
18 January 2006
Procedural Posture
Civil Negligence Action / Application to Strike Out Statement of Claim
Outcome
statement of claim struck out; action dismissed
Legal Topics
Negligence, Duty of Care, Police Investigations, Public Policy, Internal Police Investigations
Tort Law Police Law Employment Law Negligence Duty of Care Police Investigations Public Policy Internal Police Investigations

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 20 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Brian Connolly

Plaintiff/respondent

Chief Constable of the Police Service of Northern Ireland

Applicant/defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Negligence Action / Application to Strike Out Statement of Claim

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the police owed a duty of care to the plaintiff in the conduct of criminal and internal investigations.
  2. 2 Whether the statement of claim discloses a reasonable cause of action in negligence against the police.

Ratio Decidendi

The facts alleged in the statement of claim, assumed to be true, do not disclose any special ingredient or characteristic that would create a duty of care owed by the police to the plaintiff in the conduct of the investigations. The plaintiff's status as a police officer, informant, or employee does not distinguish him from victims or witnesses in prior cases. The core principle from Hill and Brooks applies, and no reasonable cause of action is disclosed.

Court Disposition

statement of claim struck out; action dismissed

Orders

  • Writ of summons and statement of claim struck out for disclosing no reasonable cause of action.
  • Plaintiff condemned in costs of the application.