{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.009193054136874362, 'fraction_numerical': 0.0010214504596527069, 'mean_word_length': 4.664739884393064, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Osman and police immunity in the English law of torts

This article examines and questions the nature of police immunity from claims for negligence in the investigation and suppression of crime, as stated by the House of Lords in Hill v Chief Constable of West Yorkshire. This issue has been discussed before the European Court of Human Rights in Osman v United Kingdom, where the court held that a blanket application of the immunity was contrary to art 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights. This article will argue that this decision does not overturn the basic public policy principles for the immunity stated in Hill and that further examination of this area of law is required. It is submitted that if the law is considered in terms of proximity rather than in terms of public policy immunity, a clearer understanding of the principles underlying this area of law can be reached together with the desirable goal of removing the term ‘immunity’ from this area of law.