Please sign in with your existing account details.
Register to access exclusive content, sign up to receive our updates and personalise your experience on brownejacobson.com.
Privacy statement - Terms and conditions
Forgotten your password?
You have exceeded the maximum number of login attempts for this email address and your account has been locked. An email has been sent to member of Browne Jacobson's web team and some one will be contacting you over the next two working days with details of how to change your password.
Are you sure you want to remove this item from you pinned content?
Lease – Duty of care to an arrested person
The claimant, a known criminal, was arrested in September 1994. It was known to the police that he frequently evaded arrest by jumping from the window of his flat, which was on the second floor. On this occasion he jumped from a bedroom window of his flat and fractured his skull. He sued the police. The judge at first instance found as a fact that the officers had permitted the claimant to jump and that if there was a duty of care to prevent that sort of injury they had breached. But he went on however to find that under these circumstances and relying on the ex turpi doctrine (i.e. you cannot bring an action based on your wrong doing) that he did not think there was a duty of care but if there had been the police would have had a defence.
1.There was no duty on the police to prevent him hurting himself whilst trying to escape.
2. Once he had been arrested, the police had certain duties of care. It was the detention and not the arrest that gave rise to the duties in those circumstances.
3. The claimant had injured himself when he had escaped from lawful custody. At that point he was committing a crime and no longer in the immediate power of the officer.
4. N.B. Mr Justice Sedley disagreed in the dissenting judgment that taking a view that the duty was owed not to give the claimant a temptation to escape or an opportunity of doing so when there was a known risk that he would do himself real harm.
On Monday 25 November the 2011 SRA Handbook is replaced by the 2019 SRA Standards and Regulations (often referred to as STARS).This is the 26th version of the Code of Conduct for Solicitors.
View
Contingent loss is relevant to limitation; specifically, the date at which a claimant’s cause of action accrues for the purposes of a claim in the tort of negligence (as many claims against professional advisers are framed).
The latest update covering delegated authority, insurance product development, the senior insurance managers regime, data protection, operational control frameworks, Lloyds market, and horizon scanning.
We were hoping to be able to give you some interesting insights following the judgment of X v Kuoni Travel Ltd but that will have to wait for another day.
The content on this page is provided for the purposes of general interest and information. It contains only brief summaries of aspects of the subject matter and does not provide comprehensive statements of the law. It does not constitute legal advice and does not provide a substitute for it.
Select which mailings you would like to receive from us.
Sign up