The Case of Osman Versus United Kingdom on the Law of Tort - Essay Example

Understanding the Implications of the Decision of the Court in the case of Osman v United Kingdom on the law of Tort I. Introduction Tort law is a body of law that provides remedies for damages and wrongs suffered arising from a contractual obligation or a breach in the duty of care. According to Horsey, K & Rackley,E. (2009) a person who sustains damages has the right to use the law of tort to demand for compensation from the person or entity that is responsible for the damages or injuries sustained by the claimant. The acts which cause the damage may be done intentionally or negligently (Deakin et al, 2008) thus, a person who fails to perform his or her duties or contractual obligations to another may be held liable for damages regardless of whether or not he or she internationally caused the damage to the other. However, before the defendant can be held liable for tort, he must meet certain qualifications specified under the law (Lunny et al, 2008). Vice versa, the claimant must prove in the court of law that he or she sustained injuries or damages resulting from the act or omission of the defendant. Over the years, the Courts have decided numerous cases on torts and some of these cases have tremendous impact of the English legal system. The case of Osman v United Kingdom [1998]1 contains a landmark decision of the Court regarding the liability of a public officer for tort under Section 6 of the European Convention of Human Rights. II. Facts of the Case According to the facts of this case, in 1987, Mr. Paul Paget-Lewis, one of the teachers of Homenton House School, Hackney, London developed a disturbing attachment to the 14 year old Ahmet Osman. When the school records of Osman were stolen and graffiti of sexual nature concerning Ahmet appeared near the home of the Osman’s, the family reported the incident to the police and the police performed routine investigation regarding the matter. Paget-Lewis was questioned regarding both incidents but he denied everything. Between May and October 1987, attacks were made on the property of the Osman family. All these incidents were reported to the police and the police questioned Paget-Lewis regarding these incidents but he denied any involved. On December 15, 1987, during an interview with the education authority, Paget-Lewis said that he felt totally self-destructive and blamed the headmaster for his troubles. On December 17, 1987, police officers came to the house of Paget-Lewis to arrest him for causing criminal damages on the property of the Osman’s but he was not home and he did not turn up for work either. On March 7, 1988, Paget-Lewis came to the Osman home and shot and injured Ahmet. Ali Osman, the father of Ahmet was also killed in the incident. After the incident at the Osman’s, Paget-Lewis went to the home of the headmaster, shot him and killed his son. In the aftermath of the incident, the Osman family sued the police for its failure to protect the family against Paget-Lewis relying on the provisions of Article 2, 6, 8, 13 and 50 of the Convention. III. Decision of the Court and its Implications Although the complaints filed by the Osman family against the police were based on numerous grounds, most of the claims filed by the family were denied by the court. According to the court in this case, there was no violation of Articles 2 ( the right to life) and Article 8 (the right to private life) of the European Convention on Human Rights on the part of the police. However, its allegation for violation of Section 6 of the European Human Rights Convention was given merit by the Court. According to Article 6(1) of the Convention, everyone is entitled to a “fair and public hearing within reasonable time by an independent and impartial tribunal...” Based on this provision, the Osman family pleaded with the court to allow then to file a suit against the police officers for its acts and omissions. The Court of Appeal denied the claim of the plaintiff, however, when the case was brought to the High Court, the court noticed that there was no proper determination of the plaintiff’s claim of violation of Section 6 of the Convention. The plaintiff’s claim based on this section was rejected by the Court of Appeals on the grounds that this claim fell within in the scope of the exclusionary rule which was established by the House of Lords in the case of Hill v Chief Constable of West Yorkshire [1988]2. Note that in the case of Hill v Chief Constable of West Yorkshire [1988]3, the court said that the police was under no obligation to prevent the Yorkshire Ripper from killing the daughter of Mrs. Hill, thus, the police cannot be held liable for tort of negligence. According to the court in this case, the police has the right to exercise their professional judgement in investing cases and since the police need to budget its time and money to fight crimes and protect the public as a whole, it cannot divert most of its resources to protect just a few individuals. Moreover, according to the court in this case, imposing tort liabilities and opening the operational decisions of the police to judicial review tantamount to a disincentive that will prevent the police from trying harder to solve cases and protect the public. The decision of the court in the case of Hill v Chief Constable of West Yorkshire [1988]4 provided a blanket protection to the police against liabilities for torts when exercising their professional judgments. This same grounds immunity was applied by the court in the case of Rondel v Worsley [1969]5 but this ground was later on overruled by the court in the case of Athur JS Hall & Co v Simons & others [2000]6. The judgement of the Court of Appeals regarding the issue of immunity of the police from tort was questions by the High Court in the case of Osman. The plaintiff in this case argued that while the rule which afford the police immunity from tort, the case of Osman involved an alleged failure on the part of the police to protect the life of a child and this failure resulted in a series of acts and omissions which amounted to grave negligence. The plaintiff claimed that when the police conducted an investigation of the case and put the accused under surveillance, the police assumed responsibility for their safety, thus, the police now owned the family the duty of care. The failure of the police to provide protection to the family resulted to the death of Ali Osman and the serious injuries on the part of Ahmet. In response to the arguments of the plaintiff in this case, the Court said that the tort case against the police should not be summarily dismissed and that the plaintiff should be allowed to bring the case to court where the police can account for their actions and omissions in a proper proceeding. The decisions of the court to allow the plaintiff to bring a tort case against the police officers in court open the police to suit. The refusal of the court to apply the exclusionary rule in this case on the ground that such rule constituted a disproportionate restrict on the right of the plaintiff to have access to the court opened the possibilities of the filing suits against the police for its actions or inactions. As it is, those who feel that they have been injured by the action or inaction of the police in certain cases may now go to court and sue for recovery of damages for injuries suffered. However, this does not mean that all claimants who go to court to recover damages from the police for its actions or inaction may be able to recover damages. What the court said in this case is that plaintiffs have the right to bring suit and be given their days in court. The merits of the case filed by the plaintiff will be determined by the court before it will award compensation for damages. The lifting of the blanket protection to police officers against tort has some serious implications on the ability of the police to perform their duties and functions. Several cases decided by the Court after the Osman case showed a procedural shift which affect the rights of the plaintiff and the defendant alike. According to the Court in the case of Z v United Kingdom [2003]7, although the Court found the plaintiffs to be ineligible to sue the local authority for its failure to prevent the harm, the court did not find any reason to bar or restrict the plaintiffs’ right to access to court. On the other hand, in the case of Orange v Chief Constable of West Yorkshire [2001]8, the court ruled that as a general rule, it is not the duty of the police to prevent the plaintiff from harming himself or committing suicide while in prison, however, this does not bar the plaintiff from going to court and engage the defendant is an adversarial proceeding. IV. Conclusion Although the court did not directly say that the police can be held liable for its actions and inactions when handling certain cases, the fact the court allowed the plaintiff to file suit against the police is a clear indication that the exclusionary rule which afford blanket protection to police officers does not apply in certain cases. As it is, under certain circumstances, police officers performing their duties may be sued for alleged negligence and breach of the duty of care. References: Books 1. Deakin, Johnston and Markenisis (2008). Markesinis & Deakins Tort Law. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 2. Horsey, K & Rackley,E. (2009) Tort Law Oxford University Press, Oxford 1st ed 3. Lunny M., Oliphant K. (2008) Tort Law: Text and materials, Oxford University Press Laws and Cases 1. Athur JS Hall & Co v Simons & others (2000) 3 AER 673 2. European Convention on Human Rights 3. Hill v Chief Constable of West Yorkshire [1988] All E.R. 238 4. Orange v Chief Constable of West Yorkshire [2001] 3 WLR 736 5. Osman v United Kingdom [1998] EHRR 101 6. Rondel v Worsley [1969] 1 AC 191 7. Z v United Kingdom [2003] 34 EHRR 97 Read More