mdroth/huggingface-course_section-5_zst huggingface dataset:
Case: Schilling v Lenton (1988) 47 SASR 88
Outcome: cited
By way of illustration I would note that a duty of care has been assumed, or found to exist: (i) in the conduct of a high speed police motor vehicle pursuit of a suspected criminal ( Schilling v Lenton (1988) 47 SASR 88; see also Marshall v Osmond [1983] 1 QB 1034; 57 Am Jur 2d, above SS439); (ii) where a superior officer failed to go to the assistance of another officer whom he knew was being attacked close by and for whom he had a responsibility ( Costello v Chief Constable of the Northumbria Police , above; Mullaney v Chief Constable of West Midlands Police [2001] EWCA Civ 700) ; (iii) in positively provoking or acting in disregard of a real and substantial risk of harm to a person ( Zalewski v Turcarolo , above) or property ( Rigby v Chief Constable of Northamptonshire [1985] 1 WLR 1242); (iv) in providing for the safety and well-being of persons in police custody ( Hall v Whatmore [1961] VR 225; Howard v Jarvis [1958] HCA 19 ; (1958) 98 CLR 177; Reeves v Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis [1999] UKHL 35 ; [2000] 1 AC 360); (v) in relation to preserving the confidentiality of information provided by an informant identifying a criminal suspect, the disclosure of which was likely to expose the informant and her husband to a greater risk of harm at the hands of the suspect than the ordinary risk to the general public ( Swinney v Chief Constable of the Northumbria Police ); (vi) in Canada, to protect a woman who was unaware she was knowingly being used by police as "bait" to catch a serial rapist in circumstances in which the police deliberately failed to warn of the risk she faced for fear of compromising their investigation though knowing that the rapist would attack again and cause irreparable harm to his victim ( Doe v Metropolitan Toronto (Municipality) Commissioners of Police (1998) 160 DLR 4 th 697); and (vii) in a United States jurisdiction, in delaying in responding to calls made by assault victims, the assurance that help was on its way having been given to them ( Chambers-Castanes v King County 669 P2d 451 (1983); and see Zitter, "Liability for Failure of Police Response to Emergency Call" , 39 ALR 4 th 691).
Case: Marshall v Osmond [1983] 1 QB 1034
Outcome: cited
By way of illustration I would note that a duty of care has been assumed, or found to exist: (i) in the conduct of a high speed police motor vehicle pursuit of a suspected criminal ( Schilling v Lenton (1988) 47 SASR 88; see also Marshall v Osmond [1983] 1 QB 1034; 57 Am Jur 2d, above SS439); (ii) where a superior officer failed to go to the assistance of another officer whom he knew was being attacked close by and for whom he had a responsibility ( Costello v Chief Constable of the Northumbria Police , above; Mullaney v Chief Constable of West Midlands Police [2001] EWCA Civ 700) ; (iii) in positively provoking or acting in disregard of a real and substantial risk of harm to a person ( Zalewski v Turcarolo , above) or property ( Rigby v Chief Constable of Northamptonshire [1985] 1 WLR 1242); (iv) in providing for the safety and well-being of persons in police custody ( Hall v Whatmore [1961] VR 225; Howard v Jarvis [1958] HCA 19 ; (1958) 98 CLR 177; Reeves v Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis [1999] UKHL 35 ; [2000] 1 AC 360); (v) in relation to preserving the confidentiality of information provided by an informant identifying a criminal suspect, the disclosure of which was likely to expose the informant and her husband to a greater risk of harm at the hands of the suspect than the ordinary risk to the general public ( Swinney v Chief Constable of the Northumbria Police ); (vi) in Canada, to protect a woman who was unaware she was knowingly being used by police as "bait" to catch a serial rapist in circumstances in which the police deliberately failed to warn of the risk she faced for fear of compromising their investigation though knowing that the rapist would attack again and cause irreparable harm to his victim ( Doe v Metropolitan Toronto (Municipality) Commissioners of Police (1998) 160 DLR 4 th 697); and (vii) in a United States jurisdiction, in delaying in responding to calls made by assault victims, the assurance that help was on its way having been given to them ( Chambers-Castanes v King County 669 P2d 451 (1983); and see Zitter, "Liability for Failure of Police Response to Emergency Call" , 39 ALR 4 th 691).
Case: Mullaney v Chief Constable of West Midlands Police [2001] EWCA Civ 700
Outcome: cited
By way of illustration I would note that a duty of care has been assumed, or found to exist: (i) in the conduct of a high speed police motor vehicle pursuit of a suspected criminal ( Schilling v Lenton (1988) 47 SASR 88; see also Marshall v Osmond [1983] 1 QB 1034; 57 Am Jur 2d, above SS439); (ii) where a superior officer failed to go to the assistance of another officer whom he knew was being attacked close by and for whom he had a responsibility ( Costello v Chief Constable of the Northumbria Police , above; Mullaney v Chief Constable of West Midlands Police [2001] EWCA Civ 700) ; (iii) in positively provoking or acting in disregard of a real and substantial risk of harm to a person ( Zalewski v Turcarolo , above) or property ( Rigby v Chief Constable of Northamptonshire [1985] 1 WLR 1242); (iv) in providing for the safety and well-being of persons in police custody ( Hall v Whatmore [1961] VR 225; Howard v Jarvis [1958] HCA 19 ; (1958) 98 CLR 177; Reeves v Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis [1999] UKHL 35 ; [2000] 1 AC 360); (v) in relation to preserving the confidentiality of information provided by an informant identifying a criminal suspect, the disclosure of which was likely to expose the informant and her husband to a greater risk of harm at the hands of the suspect than the ordinary risk to the general public ( Swinney v Chief Constable of the Northumbria Police ); (vi) in Canada, to protect a woman who was unaware she was knowingly being used by police as "bait" to catch a serial rapist in circumstances in which the police deliberately failed to warn of the risk she faced for fear of compromising their investigation though knowing that the rapist would attack again and cause irreparable harm to his victim ( Doe v Metropolitan Toronto (Municipality) Commissioners of Police (1998) 160 DLR 4 th 697); and (vii) in a United States jurisdiction, in delaying in responding to calls made by assault victims, the assurance that help was on its way having been given to them ( Chambers-Castanes v King County 669 P2d 451 (1983); and see Zitter, "Liability for Failure of Police Response to Emergency Call" , 39 ALR 4 th 691).
Case: Rigby v Chief Constable of Northamptonshire [1985] 1 WLR 1242 
Outcome: cited
By way of illustration I would note that a duty of care has been assumed, or found to exist: (i) in the conduct of a high speed police motor vehicle pursuit of a suspected criminal ( Schilling v Lenton (1988) 47 SASR 88; see also Marshall v Osmond [1983] 1 QB 1034; 57 Am Jur 2d, above SS439); (ii) where a superior officer failed to go to the assistance of another officer whom he knew was being attacked close by and for whom he had a responsibility ( Costello v Chief Constable of the Northumbria Police , above; Mullaney v Chief Constable of West Midlands Police [2001] EWCA Civ 700) ; (iii) in positively provoking or acting in disregard of a real and substantial risk of harm to a person ( Zalewski v Turcarolo , above) or property ( Rigby v Chief Constable of Northamptonshire [1985] 1 WLR 1242); (iv) in providing for the safety and well-being of persons in police custody ( Hall v Whatmore [1961] VR 225; Howard v Jarvis [1958] HCA 19 ; (1958) 98 CLR 177; Reeves v Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis [1999] UKHL 35 ; [2000] 1 AC 360); (v) in relation to preserving the confidentiality of information provided by an informant identifying a criminal suspect, the disclosure of which was likely to expose the informant and her husband to a greater risk of harm at the hands of the suspect than the ordinary risk to the general public ( Swinney v Chief Constable of the Northumbria Police ); (vi) in Canada, to protect a woman who was unaware she was knowingly being used by police as "bait" to catch a serial rapist in circumstances in which the police deliberately failed to warn of the risk she faced for fear of compromising their investigation though knowing that the rapist would attack again and cause irreparable harm to his victim ( Doe v Metropolitan Toronto (Municipality) Commissioners of Police (1998) 160 DLR 4 th 697); and (vii) in a United States jurisdiction, in delaying in responding to calls made by assault victims, the assurance that help was on its way having been given to them ( Chambers-Castanes v King County 669 P2d 451 (1983); and see Zitter, "Liability for Failure of Police Response to Emergency Call" , 39 ALR 4 th 691).
Case: Howard v Jarvis [1958] HCA 19 ; (1958) 98 CLR 177
Outcome: cited
By way of illustration I would note that a duty of care has been assumed, or found to exist: (i) in the conduct of a high speed police motor vehicle pursuit of a suspected criminal ( Schilling v Lenton (1988) 47 SASR 88; see also Marshall v Osmond [1983] 1 QB 1034; 57 Am Jur 2d, above SS439); (ii) where a superior officer failed to go to the assistance of another officer whom he knew was being attacked close by and for whom he had a responsibility ( Costello v Chief Constable of the Northumbria Police , above; Mullaney v Chief Constable of West Midlands Police [2001] EWCA Civ 700) ; (iii) in positively provoking or acting in disregard of a real and substantial risk of harm to a person ( Zalewski v Turcarolo , above) or property ( Rigby v Chief Constable of Northamptonshire [1985] 1 WLR 1242); (iv) in providing for the safety and well-being of persons in police custody ( Hall v Whatmore [1961] VR 225; Howard v Jarvis [1958] HCA 19 ; (1958) 98 CLR 177; Reeves v Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis [1999] UKHL 35 ; [2000] 1 AC 360); (v) in relation to preserving the confidentiality of information provided by an informant identifying a criminal suspect, the disclosure of which was likely to expose the informant and her husband to a greater risk of harm at the hands of the suspect than the ordinary risk to the general public ( Swinney v Chief Constable of the Northumbria Police ); (vi) in Canada, to protect a woman who was unaware she was knowingly being used by police as "bait" to catch a serial rapist in circumstances in which the police deliberately failed to warn of the risk she faced for fear of compromising their investigation though knowing that the rapist would attack again and cause irreparable harm to his victim ( Doe v Metropolitan Toronto (Municipality) Commissioners of Police (1998) 160 DLR 4 th 697); and (vii) in a United States jurisdiction, in delaying in responding to calls made by assault victims, the assurance that help was on its way having been given to them ( Chambers-Castanes v King County 669 P2d 451 (1983); and see Zitter, "Liability for Failure of Police Response to Emergency Call" , 39 ALR 4 th 691).
Case: Reeves v Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis [1999] UKHL 35 ; [2000] 1 AC 360 
Outcome: cited
By way of illustration I would note that a duty of care has been assumed, or found to exist: (i) in the conduct of a high speed police motor vehicle pursuit of a suspected criminal ( Schilling v Lenton (1988) 47 SASR 88; see also Marshall v Osmond [1983] 1 QB 1034; 57 Am Jur 2d, above SS439); (ii) where a superior officer failed to go to the assistance of another officer whom he knew was being attacked close by and for whom he had a responsibility ( Costello v Chief Constable of the Northumbria Police , above; Mullaney v Chief Constable of West Midlands Police [2001] EWCA Civ 700) ; (iii) in positively provoking or acting in disregard of a real and substantial risk of harm to a person ( Zalewski v Turcarolo , above) or property ( Rigby v Chief Constable of Northamptonshire [1985] 1 WLR 1242); (iv) in providing for the safety and well-being of persons in police custody ( Hall v Whatmore [1961] VR 225; Howard v Jarvis [1958] HCA 19 ; (1958) 98 CLR 177; Reeves v Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis [1999] UKHL 35 ; [2000] 1 AC 360); (v) in relation to preserving the confidentiality of information provided by an informant identifying a criminal suspect, the disclosure of which was likely to expose the informant and her husband to a greater risk of harm at the hands of the suspect than the ordinary risk to the general public ( Swinney v Chief Constable of the Northumbria Police ); (vi) in Canada, to protect a woman who was unaware she was knowingly being used by police as "bait" to catch a serial rapist in circumstances in which the police deliberately failed to warn of the risk she faced for fear of compromising their investigation though knowing that the rapist would attack again and cause irreparable harm to his victim ( Doe v Metropolitan Toronto (Municipality) Commissioners of Police (1998) 160 DLR 4 th 697); and (vii) in a United States jurisdiction, in delaying in responding to calls made by assault victims, the assurance that help was on its way having been given to them ( Chambers-Castanes v King County 669 P2d 451 (1983); and see Zitter, "Liability for Failure of Police Response to Emergency Call" , 39 ALR 4 th 691).
Case: Doe v Metropolitan Toronto (Municipality) Commissioners of Police (1998) 160 DLR 4 th 697
Outcome: cited
By way of illustration I would note that a duty of care has been assumed, or found to exist: (i) in the conduct of a high speed police motor vehicle pursuit of a suspected criminal ( Schilling v Lenton (1988) 47 SASR 88; see also Marshall v Osmond [1983] 1 QB 1034; 57 Am Jur 2d, above SS439); (ii) where a superior officer failed to go to the assistance of another officer whom he knew was being attacked close by and for whom he had a responsibility ( Costello v Chief Constable of the Northumbria Police , above; Mullaney v Chief Constable of West Midlands Police [2001] EWCA Civ 700) ; (iii) in positively provoking or acting in disregard of a real and substantial risk of harm to a person ( Zalewski v Turcarolo , above) or property ( Rigby v Chief Constable of Northamptonshire [1985] 1 WLR 1242); (iv) in providing for the safety and well-being of persons in police custody ( Hall v Whatmore [1961] VR 225; Howard v Jarvis [1958] HCA 19 ; (1958) 98 CLR 177; Reeves v Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis [1999] UKHL 35 ; [2000] 1 AC 360); (v) in relation to preserving the confidentiality of information provided by an informant identifying a criminal suspect, the disclosure of which was likely to expose the informant and her husband to a greater risk of harm at the hands of the suspect than the ordinary risk to the general public ( Swinney v Chief Constable of the Northumbria Police ); (vi) in Canada, to protect a woman who was unaware she was knowingly being used by police as "bait" to catch a serial rapist in circumstances in which the police deliberately failed to warn of the risk she faced for fear of compromising their investigation though knowing that the rapist would attack again and cause irreparable harm to his victim ( Doe v Metropolitan Toronto (Municipality) Commissioners of Police (1998) 160 DLR 4 th 697); and (vii) in a United States jurisdiction, in delaying in responding to calls made by assault victims, the assurance that help was on its way having been given to them ( Chambers-Castanes v King County 669 P2d 451 (1983); and see Zitter, "Liability for Failure of Police Response to Emergency Call" , 39 ALR 4 th 691).
Case: Chambers-Castanes v King County 669 P2d 451 (1983)
Outcome: cited
By way of illustration I would note that a duty of care has been assumed, or found to exist: (i) in the conduct of a high speed police motor vehicle pursuit of a suspected criminal ( Schilling v Lenton (1988) 47 SASR 88; see also Marshall v Osmond [1983] 1 QB 1034; 57 Am Jur 2d, above SS439); (ii) where a superior officer failed to go to the assistance of another officer whom he knew was being attacked close by and for whom he had a responsibility ( Costello v Chief Constable of the Northumbria Police , above; Mullaney v Chief Constable of West Midlands Police [2001] EWCA Civ 700) ; (iii) in positively provoking or acting in disregard of a real and substantial risk of harm to a person ( Zalewski v Turcarolo , above) or property ( Rigby v Chief Constable of Northamptonshire [1985] 1 WLR 1242); (iv) in providing for the safety and well-being of persons in police custody ( Hall v Whatmore [1961] VR 225; Howard v Jarvis [1958] HCA 19 ; (1958) 98 CLR 177; Reeves v Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis [1999] UKHL 35 ; [2000] 1 AC 360); (v) in relation to preserving the confidentiality of information provided by an informant identifying a criminal suspect, the disclosure of which was likely to expose the informant and her husband to a greater risk of harm at the hands of the suspect than the ordinary risk to the general public ( Swinney v Chief Constable of the Northumbria Police ); (vi) in Canada, to protect a woman who was unaware she was knowingly being used by police as "bait" to catch a serial rapist in circumstances in which the police deliberately failed to warn of the risk she faced for fear of compromising their investigation though knowing that the rapist would attack again and cause irreparable harm to his victim ( Doe v Metropolitan Toronto (Municipality) Commissioners of Police (1998) 160 DLR 4 th 697); and (vii) in a United States jurisdiction, in delaying in responding to calls made by assault victims, the assurance that help was on its way having been given to them ( Chambers-Castanes v King County 669 P2d 451 (1983); and see Zitter, "Liability for Failure of Police Response to Emergency Call" , 39 ALR 4 th 691).
Case: Cowan v The Chief Constable for Avon &amp; Somerset Constabulary [2001] EWCA Civ 1699
Outcome: distinguished
It is, in my view, unnecessary in this matter to express a concluded view on whether, as in England, a special though not unqualified, immunity rule applies to police activities "in the investigation and suppression of crime": Costello's case at 563; or whether the duty of care question is to be answered by applying to police those principles now generally applied to public authorities in the discharge of their statutory and, if relevant, common law functions: see Graham Barclay Oysters Pty Ltd v Ryan . I am of this view because both binding and persuasive authority lead inevitably to the conclusion that this application must fail. However, I would respectfully suggest that more recent English authority demonstrating "reluctance to endorse the full breadth of what Hill v Chief Constable of West Yorkshire ... has been thought to lay down" on the immunity of police: cf Brooks v Commissioner of Police , at [3], [6] and [28]; and the difficulty in providing criteria to mark out exceptions to that immunity: see e.g. Costello ; Cowan v The Chief Constable for Avon &amp; Somerset Constabulary [2001] EWCA Civ 1699 ; tell in favour of avoiding any special rule applicable to police, while still acknowledging that the police function can have distinctive characteristics and purposes which in many settings may exclude the concurrent operation of a duty of care at common law: cf Doe , 72 DLR 4 th at 584-586.
Case: Emanuele v Hedley [1998] FCA 709
Outcome: cited
In light of the above cases, and putting to one side the effect if any of the communications between Mr Myer and Mr Patching, there would be no arguable basis at all for any contention that AFP officers had a legal responsibility to warn any of the applicants either that they were under police surveillance or that they were exposing themselves to the foreseeable risk of the death penalty especially given the information acquired about the applicants in the ongoing AFP investigation. Having been prepared for whatever reason to engage in criminal activity, the applicants would properly be regarded as the authors of their own harm: cf Emanuele v Hedley [1998] FCA 709 esp in its reliance on State Rail Authority of New South Wales v Wiegold (1991) 25 NSWLR 500 at 517. And the police would have been entitled to have treated them as no more than subjects of an ongoing criminal investigation which fell clearly within the mandated functions of the AFP. Given the police's function in the matter, the applicants would not have been objects of rescue (as they would have been if there was a duty to warn).
Case: State Rail Authority of New South Wales v Wiegold (1991) 25 NSWLR 500
Outcome: cited
In light of the above cases, and putting to one side the effect if any of the communications between Mr Myer and Mr Patching, there would be no arguable basis at all for any contention that AFP officers had a legal responsibility to warn any of the applicants either that they were under police surveillance or that they were exposing themselves to the foreseeable risk of the death penalty especially given the information acquired about the applicants in the ongoing AFP investigation. Having been prepared for whatever reason to engage in criminal activity, the applicants would properly be regarded as the authors of their own harm: cf Emanuele v Hedley [1998] FCA 709 esp in its reliance on State Rail Authority of New South Wales v Wiegold (1991) 25 NSWLR 500 at 517. And the police would have been entitled to have treated them as no more than subjects of an ongoing criminal investigation which fell clearly within the mandated functions of the AFP. Given the police's function in the matter, the applicants would not have been objects of rescue (as they would have been if there was a duty to warn).
Case: O'Neill v Mann [2000] FCA 1180 ; (2000) 101 FCR 160
Outcome: applied
It is unnecessary to enlarge here on the question whether this Court would have jurisdiction in any event to entertain such a suit in negligence in the Northern Territory against members of the AFP as Commonwealth officers. I simply adhere to the affirmative view I expressed on a similar question arising in the Australian Capital Territory in O'Neill v Mann [2000] FCA 1180 ; (2000) 101 FCR 160. My reasoning in that case is "equally applicable to the Northern Territory": ALRC Report 92, The Judicial Power of the Commonwealth, 652 (2001). 111 The proposed negligence claim could well be described as a mutated form of breach of confidence action with the important difference that the duty said to be owed by the AFP officers was not owed to the supplier of the information, i.e. Lee Rush, but to the subject of it, i.e. Scott Rush. Furthermore the limitation on the use of that information proposed by the applicants is a narrow one. It is not that the AFP could not use the information supplied at all. Rather it could not be used in a way that would put Scott Rush at risk of exposure to the death penalty in Indonesia.
Case: Corrs Pavey Whiting &amp; Byrne v Collector of Customs (1987) 14 FCR 434
Outcome: cited
It need hardly be said that the disclosures of information about Scott Rush made by or on behalf of Lee Rush to AFP officers could not give rise to a duty of confidence to Lee Rush such as would prevent its use by the AFP in its investigations into drug trafficking into Australia. The disclosures related to apprehended serious criminal misconduct: cf Corrs Pavey Whiting &amp; Byrne v Collector of Customs (1987) 14 FCR 434 esp at 456. And a court would not enforce any contractual or equitable obligation relating to such information, the effect of which would have been to obstruct the administration of the criminal law: A v Hayden [1984] HCA 67 ; (1984) 156 CLR 532.