Examine Tindall v Chief Constable to understand police duty of care, statutory interpretation, and human rights, strengthening your LAW1004 legal reasoning, case analysis, and critical evaluation skills.
The above case of "Tindall and another appellant vs Chief Constable of Thames Valley Police" issued on 21st May 2024 is also notable to analyses the major responsibilities and behaviors of a police in handling any type of risk condition. For students seeking assignment helper in UK, this case provides key legal insights. The above case laws also assist to determine the statutory interpretation and judicial method. The appellant is Valerie Tindall, Estate Administrator of "Malcolm Tindall", and the respondent is Chief Constable from Police of Thames Valley. Also, the next section describes the decision of the case based on the specific elements and own opinion in the following section.
The main issue of this present case of “Tindal and Another appellant vs Chief Constable of Thames Valley Police” is to identify the “duty of care” of the police for Tindall with the other appellants for prevention of any type of harm did by a person. In this following situation, the appellants said the negligence of the police for the risk situation created by another person.
Mr. Kendall found a “black patch of ice” for which Kendall lost self-control, after that rollover beside on A413 road. After that Kendall called for the police to handle the emergency. However, the police officer came 20 minutes later and attended the local hospital for injuries. Mr. Kendall warned the police about the danger but police not looking into this type of hazard matter[1]. However, on the same day “Mr. Malcom Tindall” was also killed at 5:45 am for the existing skidded ice. Therefore, the widow, administratrix, and appellant claimed the charges against the Chief constable police for Thames Valley[2]. However, the constable applied for a strike against the claim due to the absence of reasonable cause for which the next application was applied to Supreme Court.
6 Years | LLB
In the applicant’s brief, the interference of the “Supreme Court” enables to ascertain the “Duty of Care” of the police for the public. The court followed the “Purposive type of approach” where the balance of police is reflected in the Court’s statutory interpretation for maintaining public safety. In the following situation, the application of the “The Police Act 1996”, and “The Human Rights Act 1998” was applied for highlighting the “Duty of Care” for public safety[3]. The use of the “Purposive type of approach” identified the key legislation for governing the duties of police. However, the court concluded that the police duty is to fulfil the interest of the public but not for individuals against any kind of specific harm.
The court also referred with the previous case of “Hill v Chief Constable of West Yorkshire [1989], AC 53” in which operation of Duty of care was determined relating to the police force. It is also found out from the decisions made by the court that the police has the duty of protecting the public instead of preventing one person from harming the opposed. Under this present judicial, the court also highlights the “Osman vs United Kingdom [1998]” for analyzing the negligence of the police in protein the “human rights” under the “European Convention of Human Rights of Article 2”[4]. In this following situation, the court also highlighted that the police have the duty of protecting for public interest instead of the risk that is faced by a person.
Here, the “court decision” fatally exposed the quite clear differentiation between the police considerations and the legal principles of the society. Therefore, the main concern is raised for the liability floodgates. This position was supported by the “Supreme Court in Tindall” and it was pointed out that even though there may be occasions when the police owe the victim a “Duty of care” in the “common law” (as where it may be said that a special relationship existed between the parties), the “principle of non-liability” for negligence that obtains where no such relationship existed was soundly restated.
The Court also referred to the “Osman v United Kingdom (1998) case” on police negligence concerning “Human rights” violation, and “under Article 2 of the European Convention on Human rights”. Nonetheless, in Tindall the Court made a clear separation from these precedents, and pointed out that though it might not always safeguard them from harm, the police duty is simply to operate in the broadest of public responsibilities.
The above case of “Tindall and another appellant vs Chief Constable of Thames Valley Police” mainly focused only the defects of the policies for the assessment of the risk that is being posed by the individual persons. Here the appellant was Valerie Tindall who claimed the duty of the “constable police” based on record evidence. The appellant also claimed that the individual was also under the surveillance process for a prior accident that occurred on 4th March 2014[5]. The appellant also claimed that no such action was taken by the “constable police” after the first accident for which another accident occurred there. The “Michael vs Chief Constable of South Wales Police [2015]” was another piece of evidence that emphasized that the “public authorities” do not have any type of responsibility for protecting from third parties harmful situations. Application of the “Human Rights Act 1998” and “Police Act 1996” emphasized the key duties that are applied to protect the “public interest”[6]. However “Article 2 under the Human Rights Act 1998” also stated the “right to life” through negligence under “Osman vs UK [1998]”.
Get assistance from our PROFESSIONAL ASSIGNMENT WRITERS to receive 100% assured AI-free and high-quality documents on time, ensuring an A+ grade in all subjects.
Therefore, in the above section, decisions made by the “Supreme Court” have been provided in order to demonstrate the statutory interpretation as well as the judicial precedent to analyses the role as well as responsibility of the “Police constables”. However, the above case law highlighted the questions of the public authorities for legislative attention. The above case law also identified the accountability of the role of the “law enforcement”.
The above case law of the Tindall case reflects the pragmatic and the precedent reasoning. However, analyzing the overall case law, I identified some skeptical and persuasive type of elements under “Tindall and another appellant vs Chief Constable of Thames Valley Police” which can be elaborately described by analyzing the “secondary resources”.
Identification of the specific elements
The “Persuasive and the unpersuasive type” of key aspects under the “Tindall and another appellant vs Chief Constable of Thames Valley Police” are described in the following sections.
First of all, the “Supreme Court” highlighted the discretion protection that is mainly responsible for increasing potential risk and harm to operational effectiveness. According to Roach, (2022) critically defines the role of the “Supreme Court” against the procedural and Substantive equality[7]. The author highlighted the role of the “constable police” for the protection of the publics.
The only sound part of the judgment in my view is that the Court relied on “principles of precedent” and “statutory interpretation”. “Hill v Chief Constable of West Yorkshire” is justified in affording a principle to many negligence claims against police forces, as they have significant public policy features[8]. This is why the Court was rather cautious in extending liability to ensure the appropriate representation of powers and functionality of police work, such expansion may lead to numerous lawsuits that might exacerbate police performance. Also, it was accurate that the Court made use of the called “purposive approach” to the analysis of statutes. It was also a better view of what the relationships between the police and citizens envisaged by the statutes were, that legal landmarks existed for the most part aiming to provide safety and general law enforcement, not personal protection against harm.
There is also another, the delicate issue of “rights of an individual” in relation to obligations before the public, especially after the “Osman vs UK” which has also added another useful dimension to the decision. The Court’s judgment indicates that even though people’s rights cannot be violated, the police should not impose too many limitations to their work through a negligence claim. Such reasoning is not inconsistent with the general legal theories based on the appreciation of the conflict of interest between an individual and the public.
Similarly, I also identified some “unpersuasive type of aspects” that reflect the limited scope of the “duty of care” of the police for public safety. Even though I comprehend the issues relating to public policy, the decision may have negative effects by denying any person who was injured by police negligence[9]. Their chance of seeking justice. However, if we are to use it in holding the state for liability that arose from harm that its agents have inflicted, then the issue of whether a special relationship subsists needs a more sophisticated analysis.
On the other hand, the “supreme Court” also tried to distinguish the situation of the “Osman v UK” case laws under this situation[10]. Here I realized the lack of the Court’s engagement for “Human rights”. In this situation, I also felt the need of the refinement of the “Human Rights violations” under the specific negligence of the “Constable Police”. In this situation, my concern is raised for justice of the victim persons. Similarly, Goudkamp, J. and Nolan, (2023) in the article critically described the case of “Robinson v Chief Constable of West Yorkshire”. From these “secondary sources”, I understand a rising general question about justice for negligence and the absence of “duty of care” arose by the “Constable Police” of the UK Commonwealth. That’s why here we see the collapse of moral responsibility. Therefore, this type of “narrow interpretation” is broadly highlighted in this situation. I also identified the absence of potential justice during the absence of police interaction situations. This also limited the justice actions and individuals' access[11]. I also noticed that there is very little discussion of the “Human Rights Act 1998”,’ which called out the “right to life” of a person. Therefore, the expensive view of “individual rights” and the “public safety” is highlighted as the “unpersuasive approaches”.
The broadened scope of what I understand under the term “police liability and negligence” has allowed to pinpoint the following two possible weaknesses of the Court’s reasoning. In present generation the anticipation of the police probably towards deterring individuals from being harmed is arguably higher than at the time of Hill. Scholarly discussion of police misconduct and legal reform in this area indicates that this approach might more effectively compensate those people who have been injured by state action.
I also identified from the secondary sources that application of the “Purposive type of approaches” plays an important role because this does not provide any type of justice for the individual persons[12]. This point of view implies the existence of a possibility of a greater legal expectation for the police to take over the subject’s care and protect him or her from harm once the latter has turned to police for shelter.
3.0 Conclusion
Thus, from the above discussion, in light of the above approach adopted by the Supreme Court for the “Tindall case” was suitable for statutory and policy analysis. However the overall judgement raises more questions on the legal responsibilities of the “police constable”. No such restrictive vision of the court is also identified here for describing the negligence and obligations of the “constable police”. I also identified a critical gap between the existing balance of “institutional discretion” and the “individual rights” between “constable police” and the individuals. Therefore the legal responsibilities of the police is the main concern here. However, no such restrictive type of vision of the “Supreme Court” is identified against the obligations and the negligence of the “Constable Police”. I also realized that the development of the “Human Rights” is a necessary factor to avoid this type of accountability for the following situations.
Reference list
Journals
Website
Introduction The strategic leadership offers the unique relations among employees as well as the organization to enhance the...View and Download
Introduction to Principles of Management Assignment Principles of management refer to rules of thumb that are always beneficial...View and Download
Introduction to Sustainable Food And Beverage Assignment Consumer demand depends on minimal and fresh quality processed...View and Download
Introduction Professionalism in Adult Nursing context encompasses with ensuring high-quality care to patients, upholding values...View and Download
Introduction: Reassessing Stalin's Role “The Berlin Crisis of 1948-1949 was a watershed moment at the beginning of the...View and Download
Introduction The second language acquisition is defined as a term which includes learning the non native language after the...View and Download
Copyright 2025 @ Rapid Assignment Help Services
