CASE OF OSMAN v. THE UNITED KINGDOM
No violation of Art. 2;No violation of Art. 8;Violation of Art. 6-1;Not necessary to examine Art. 13;Non-pecuniary damage - financial award;Costs and expenses partial award - Convention proceedings
Franz Matscher;John Freeland;R. Pekkanen;Simon Brown
10. The applicants are British citizens resident in London. The first applicant, Mrs Mulkiye Osman, was born in Cyprus in 1948. She is the widow of Mr Ali Osman who was shot dead by Mr Paul Paget-Lewis on 7 March 1988. The second applicant, Ahmet Osman, is her son, born in England in 1972. He was a former pupil of Paul Paget-Lewis at Homerton House School. Ahmet Osman was wounded in the shooting incident which led to the death of his father. The applicants complaints are directed at the failure of the authorities to appreciate and act on what they claim was a series of clear warning signs that Paul Paget-Lewis represented a serious threat to the physical safety of Ahmet Osman and his family. There is disagreement between the applicants and the respondent State on essential aspects of the circumstances leading to the tragedy. The applicants have disputed in this respect the completeness of the facts as found by the Commission. 11. In 1986 the headmaster of Homerton House School, Mr John Prince, noticed that one of his teaching staff, Paul Paget-Lewis, had developed an attachment to Ahmet Osman, a pupil at the school. According to a statement which he made to the police on 10 March 1988, Mr Prince indicated that he “made a point of personally keeping an eye on the situation”. As a result of this attachment, Paget-Lewis informed Mr Prince that he intended to leave the school and become a supply teacher. Mr Kenneth Perkins, a deputy head teacher, spoke with Paget-Lewis and managed to persuade him to remain at the school. 12. In January 1987 Mrs Green, the mother of Leslie Green, another pupil at the school and the applicants’ neighbour, telephoned Mr Fleming – another deputy head teacher – to complain that Paget-Lewis had been following her son home after school and harassing him. She alleged that Paget-Lewis had been spreading rumours that her son had engaged in deviant sexual practices and that he objected to her son’s friendship with Ahmet Osman. Mrs Green made a formal complaint to this effect to Mr Prince on 2 March 1987. 13. On 3 March 1987 Mr Perkins interviewed Leslie Green, who confirmed that Paget-Lewis had been following him and had been spreading rumours of a sexual nature about him because of his friendship with Ahmet Osman. 14. Also on 3 March 1987 Mr Fleming interviewed Ahmet Osman. In the typed record of this interview dated 6 March 1987, Ahmet confirmed that Paget-Lewis had warned him about Leslie Green, accusing Leslie of sexual misconduct with another boy at the school. Ahmet also reported to Mr Fleming during the interview that on one occasion Paget-Lewis had followed Leslie and himself home in his car. He also stated that Paget-Lewis had asked him to come and see him in his classroom at lunch times, apparently to learn Turkish, and that Paget-Lewis had taken photographs of him and given him money, a pen and a Turkish dictionary. However, he later took the pen and deliberately snapped it in half during a lesson. 15. On 6 March 1987 Mr Perkins interviewed Paget-Lewis. In the course of the interview Paget-Lewis stated that he had a special relationship with Ahmet Osman which had developed over a period of a year and which Leslie Green was trying to disrupt and that he was so upset on one occasion that he confronted Leslie and accused the boy of being a sexual deviant. He admitted that he had followed Leslie home on one occasion and had waited outside his parents’ house for 45 minutes. Paget-Lewis mentioned to Mr Perkins that he had told Leslie Green that he would become “very angry” if anything happened to his relationship with Ahmet, although he indicated to Mr Perkins that this was not to be seen as a threat. He also acknowledged that he had given Ahmet money and presents, and had taken photographs of him for “sentimental reasons”. In a later memorandum dated 5 May 1988, Mr Perkins described Paget-Lewis as having been in a highly irrational state during this interview and unwilling to admit that his behaviour displayed a serious lack of wisdom and professionalism. 16. On 9 March 1987 Paget-Lewis submitted a written statement to Mr Perkins regarding the complaint made by Mrs Green. In his memorandum of 5 May 1988 (see paragraph 15 above) Mr Perkins stated that he found the statement “disturbing” since it showed clearly that Paget-Lewis was “overpoweringly jealous” of the friendship between Ahmet Osman and Leslie Green and provided clear evidence that he “was not in control of his emotions”. Leslie was presented as devious, malicious and an evil influence. Mr Perkins again interviewed Paget-Lewis on his written statement during which he pointed out his concerns about the content of the statement and suggested to Paget-Lewis that he seek psychiatric help. Mr Perkins informed Mr Prince of everything which had happened up until that date. 17. Prior to 13 March 1987 Mr Prince had an informal discussion with Paget-Lewis in which he admitted telling pupils at the school that Leslie Green had engaged in acts of oral sex with Ahmet Osman in revenge for rumours spread by Leslie concerning his relationship with Ahmet. On 13 March 1987 Mr Prince formally interviewed Paget-Lewis on the basis of the notes of the interview between Paget-Lewis and Mr Perkins. The contemporaneous notes taken of the meeting reveal that Paget-Lewis admitted that he had become attached to Ahmet Osman; that he had accused Leslie Green of trying to turn Ahmet against him; and that he had parked outside Leslie’s house to show that he was not to be scared away. Paget-Lewis denied that he had accused Leslie of deviant sexual practices. The notes of the meeting conclude with the sentence “the situation has now escalated and Mr Prince has no confidence in his own ability to contain it”. 18. Mr Prince was informed on 16 March 1987 in an interview with Leslie Green and his mother that Paget-Lewis had been spying on Ahmet Osman and that Paget-Lewis had told Ahmet that “he knew where his mother worked and how much money she earned and that if Ahmet left school, he would find him”. 19. During this period another deputy head teacher, Mr Youssouf, also interviewed Ahmet Osman on a number of occasions. These interviews revealed that Paget-Lewis had told Ahmet that he would be able to find him if he left the school. Paget-Lewis claimed to have discovered Ahmet’s previous address and the name of his previous school and said he had visited the area and had spoken to his former neighbours. 20. On 17 March 1987 Mr Prince met with the Osman family to explain his concerns about the interest Paget-Lewis had taken in Ahmet. He explained that the school was quite satisfied that nothing improper had taken place between Paget-Lewis and Ahmet. He told them that the school would monitor the situation closely to ensure that Ahmet would be safe. Ahmet was told never to be alone with Paget-Lewis. During this meeting Ahmet’s mother expressed her wish that her son should be transferred to another school. 21. According to the diary of Mr Prince between 3 March 1987 and 17 March 1987 he met with PC Williams on four occasions. The applicants state that during these meetings information concerning Paget-Lewis’ conduct towards Ahmet Osman was passed on to the police. The Government state that PC Williams had no recollection of being told about the presents which Paget-Lewis had given to Ahmet or that Paget-Lewis had followed Ahmet home. PC Williams did not keep any record of the meetings, nor did he make any report concerning the nature and extent of the information that was communicated to him, or if he did no such record now exists. The Government stress that all concerned were satisfied that there was no sexual element to Paget-Lewis’ attachment to Ahmet and the matter could be dealt with internally by the school. 22. By 17 March 1987 graffiti had appeared at six locations around the school which read “Leslie, do not forget to wear a condom when you screw Ahmet or he will get Aids.” The words had been written with spray paint and a stencil. 23. Following the discovery of the graffiti, Mr Perkins interviewed Paget-Lewis and asked him if he was responsible. He denied this. However, Mr Perkins noted in his report that Paget-Lewis knew the precise wording and the exact locations of all the graffiti. 24. On 19 March 1987 a further discussion took place between Mr Prince and the Osman family regarding Ahmet’s transfer to another school. For his safety Mr Prince told Ahmet not to give his new school address to anyone from Homerton House. While attempting to arrange his transfer, Mr Youssouf discovered that the files relating to Ahmet and Leslie Green had been stolen from the school office. The file relating to staff disciplinary matters was also found to be missing. Mr Perkins considered that the stolen files were the likely source of the information that Paget-Lewis had acquired about Ahmet Osman’s previous address and school (see paragraph 19 above). He subsequently questioned Paget-Lewis, who denied any involvement in the theft and denied having made any comments about Ahmet’s previous address and school or visiting the area in which Ahmet used to live. 25. On 23 March 1987 Ahmet Osman was transferred to a different school, but owing to curriculum difficulties he had to return to Homerton House fourteen days later. 26. On 14 April 1987, Paget-Lewis changed his name by deed poll to Paul Ahmet Yildirim Osman. On 1 May 1987, Mr Prince wrote to the Inner London Education Authority (ILEA) informing them that Paget-Lewis had changed his name and that he was worried that some psychological imbalance might pose a threat to the safety of Ahmet Osman. He also stated that he was of the opinion that Paget-Lewis should be removed from the school as soon as possible. 27. On 4 May 1987 Mr Prince spoke with two police officers, Detective Chief Inspector Newman and Detective Inspector Clarke. According to the applicants during this meeting the headmaster informed them of the missing files and the graffiti incident and discussed the fact that Paget-Lewis’ real name was Ronald Stephen Potter. He had previously changed his name by deed poll to name himself after a pupil called Paget-Lewis whom he had taught at Highbury Grove School. The Government state that the two police officers have no recollection of having been informed of these matters. 28. Following his letter of 1 May 1987 (see paragraph 26 above), Mr Prince wrote to the Head of Discipline at ILEA in a letter dated 8 May 1987 stating that while he believed Paget-Lewis needed medical help, his continued presence in the school jeopardised the welfare, safety and education of the pupils. An internal memorandum from the Head of Discipline at ILEA dated the same day makes reference to “a fear that [Paget-Lewis] might seek to take the boy out of the country” and that the police are investigating the complaint that “he has removed certain files about the matter from the school”. Undated notes written by the same official between 14 April and 8 May 1987 indicate that it was feared that Ahmet Osman may be harmed and that by changing his name Paget-Lewis may abscond with the boy. The notes refer to the fact that the police had stated that Mr Prince should contact them if Ahmet goes missing for more than an hour. In addition, the police would investigate the disappearance of the missing files, search Paget-Lewis’ home and check up on his background. The Government deny that the police said that they should be contacted if Ahmet went missing or that they intended to search Paget-Lewis’ house. 29. On 19 May 1987 Paget-Lewis was seen by Dr Ferguson, the ILEA psychiatrist. Dr Ferguson was provided with, inter alia, the documents showing Paget-Lewis’ change of name; the records of the interviews conducted in March 1987; and the memorandum prepared by Mr Perkins on 5 May 1987 (see paragraph 15 above). Dr Ferguson reported: “This teacher must indeed give cause for concern. He does not present ill in formal terms, nor does he seem sexually deviant. He does have personality problems, and his judgment regarding his friendship with a pupil is reprehensibly suspect.” Dr Ferguson recommended that Paget-Lewis remain teaching at the school but that he should receive some form of counselling and psychotherapy. 30. On or about 21 May 1987, a brick was thrown through a window of the applicants’ house. The police were informed and a police officer was sent to the house and completed a crime report. On two occasions in June 1987 the tyres of Ali Osman’s car were deliberately burst. Both incidents were reported to the police, but no police records relating to the offences can be found. 31. On 1 June 1987 Mr Prince requested Paget-Lewis to take sick-leave. On 2 June 1987 Paget-Lewis was examined again by Dr Ferguson. He described a continuing strong urge to speak with Ahmet Osman and said that he felt angry that Ahmet seemed content with the situation of non-contact. Dr Ferguson concluded that under the circumstances, Paget-Lewis should remain away from Homerton House and was designated temporarily unfit to work. Paget-Lewis subsequently informed Mr Perkins that he would be taking medical leave for the remainder of the school term. He then left Homerton House and did not return again. 32. On 16 June 1987, following a further interview with Paget-Lewis, Dr Ferguson recommended that he should no longer teach at Homerton House and that transfer on medical grounds was strongly and urgently recommended. 33. On 4 June 1987 Mrs Green telephoned Mr Perkins making further complaints about Paget-Lewis following her son. She also informed him that she had sent her son to stay with her sister. 34. On 18 June 1987, Paget-Lewis was suspended pending an ILEA investigation for “unprofessional behaviour” towards Ahmet Osman. He submitted a statement dated 6 July 1987 in which, inter alia, he admitted taking photographs of Ahmet and giving him money but denied stealing files or painting graffiti. He accused Mr Perkins of lying about him and said that Mr Perkins has stated his intention of breaking him. 35. On 7 August 1987, ILEA sent a letter to Paget-Lewis officially reprimanding and severely warning him but lifting the suspension. The letter also stated that he was not to return to Homerton House. Shortly afterwards he began working as a supply teacher at two other local schools, Haggerston School and Skinners School. 36. In August or September 1987, a mixture of engine oil and paraffin was poured on the area outside the Osman family home. On 18 October 1987, the windscreen of Ali Osman’s car was smashed. During November 1987, in a series of incidents, the applicants’ front door lock was jammed with superglue, dog excrement was smeared on their doorstep and on their car, and on more than one occasion the light bulb was stolen from the light in the outside porch. Around this time all the windows of their car were also broken. All these incidents were reported to the police and on two occasions Ali Osman visited Hackney police station to discuss the vandalism and criminal damage to his property. 37. At some point during November 1987, PC Adams visited the Osmans’ home and then spoke to Paget-Lewis about the acts of vandalism. In a later statement to the police, Paget-Lewis alleged that he told PC Adams that the loss of his job was so distressing that he felt that he was in danger of doing something criminally insane. The Government deny that this was said, and refer to the fact that during the interview with PC Adams Paget-Lewis denied any involvement in the acts of vandalism and criminal damage. No detailed records were made by PC Adams of his contacts with Paget-Lewis or the Osman family. Any entries in notebooks or duty registers (crime reports or parade books) could not later be traced by the Metropolitan Police Solicitor’s Department. 38. On 7 December 1987 a car driven by Paget-Lewis collided with a van in which Leslie Green was a passenger. According to the driver of the van, Paget-Lewis claimed that his accelerator had jammed and that he could not help what happened. After the police arrived at the scene of the accident they cautioned Paget-Lewis, and provided him with a form requesting him to produce his driving documents. 39. On 10 December 1987 Paget-Lewis attended Hackney police station and produced his driving documents for inspection. Since he failed to produce a road worthiness (MOT) certificate for his car he was cautioned by the police. 40. In a statement taken by the police on 22 December 1987 from the driver of the van that had been allegedly rammed by Paget-Lewis, the driver recalled that after the accident Paget-Lewis had said: “I’m not worried because in a few months I’ll be doing life.” 41. On 8 December 1987, following the collision incident, Detective Sergeant Boardman contacted ILEA stating that he wished to interview Paget-Lewis and the headmaster. The applicants state that Detective Sergeant Boardman assured ILEA that the Osman family would be protected. The Government deny that such an assurance was given. An ILEA memorandum dated 8 December 1987 referred to the harassment of the Osman family and Paget-Lewis’ alleged admission of responsibility for the van collision saying that Leslie Green had lured Ahmet Osman away from his affections. It noted that the police were pursuing enquiries but that if nothing was heard the matter should be “chased”. It concluded with the note “Families getting police protection”. 42. On 9 December 1987 Detective Sergeant Boardman took a detailed statement from Leslie Green and his mother concerning, inter alia, the fact that Paget-Lewis had followed Leslie home, the acts of harassment and the graffiti which had appeared at the school. In his statement Leslie claimed that Paget-Lewis had threatened to “get him” whether it took “thirty days or thirty years”. He also said that he had not been to school for two weeks as he was afraid to travel there and that he had moved in with his aunt, so as to be safe from Paget-Lewis. 43. On 14 December 1987 Detective Sergeant Boardman visited Homerton House and inspected the graffiti. A police photographer took photographs of the graffiti. 44. On or about 15 December 1987 Detective Sergeant Boardman visited the Osman family and discussed the criminal damage and Paget-Lewis’ relationship with Ahmet. The applicants allege that Detective Sergeant Boardman told the family that he knew Paget-Lewis was responsible for the acts of vandalism, and gave them assurances that he would cause the incidents to stop. The Government deny that Detective Sergeant Boardman said that he knew Paget-Lewis was responsible, and that he gave assurances as to the family’s safety. 45. In his report on the case which was completed on or about 15 December 1987, Detective Sergeant Boardman observed: “It should be pointed out at this stage that there is no evidence to implicate Paget-Lewis in either of these offences [the graffiti at the school] or the acts of vandalism against Osmans’ address, although there is no doubt in everybody’s mind that he was in fact responsible and this was just another example of his spite.” 46. On 15 December 1987 Paget-Lewis was interviewed by officers of ILEA at his own request. An ILEA memorandum dated the same day recorded that Paget-Lewis felt in a totally self-destructive mood, stating that it was all a symphony and the last chord had to be played. He admitted being deeply in debt and as a result was selling all his possessions. He blamed Mr Perkins for all his troubles but would not do a “Hungerford” in a school but would see him at his home. The memorandum stated that the concerns of ILEA should be passed on to the police and noted that a call was made to Detective Sergeant Boardman, who was unavailable. Nevertheless, a detailed message was left with the receptionist. One of the officers of ILEA recalled later in a statement dated 9 March 1988 that Paget-Lewis spoke in a manner which was very disturbing, said that he blamed Mr Perkins for the loss of his job, that he knew where he lived and that he was going to do something though not at the school. The other officer recalled in her statement of 9 March 1988 that Paget-Lewis had stated that he was going to do something that would be “a sort of Hungerford”. She recalled that as a result of this conversation she informed the police and the school that she considered that the head and deputy head were at risk of violence. Although the applicants state that the content of the interview was passed on to the police, the Government deny that mention was made of the “Hungerford” reference or that there was any suggestion that the Osmans might be in danger. 47. On 15 December 1987 after receiving the message of the officer of ILEA (see paragraph 46 above), Detective Sergeant Boardman sent a telex to the local police station near Mr Perkins’ home referring to the fact that vague threats had been made and that the school authorities were very concerned. He asked them to pay casual attention to the address, giving a brief description of Paget-Lewis and the registration number of his car. 48. On 16 December 1987 Detective Sergeant Boardman contacted ILEA with a view to tracing Paget-Lewis and was provided with his address. He requested the official at ILEA to ask Paget-Lewis to contact the police. On the same day, Detective Sergeant Boardman met with Mr Prince and Mr Perkins. The applicants state that he assured Mr Prince that the police would undertake the necessary measures to protect both Mr Perkins and the applicants. A diary entry of Mr Prince dated 16 December 1987 refers to Detective Sergeant Boardman and contains a heading “OSMAN/PERKINS/POLICE PRESENCE ARRANGED” and a note that ILEA had called “to finalise arrangements re protection for Perkins/Osman families”. According to the Government no assurance of protection was given. Detective Sergeant Boardman received the impression from his meetings with Mr Prince and Mr Perkins that Paget-Lewis was angry at being removed from the school but that the anger was directed against the deputy head, who in any case did not feel in danger. 49. On 17 December 1987 Detective Sergeant Boardman and other police officers arrived at Paget-Lewis’ house with the intention of arresting him on suspicion of criminal damage. Paget-Lewis was absent. The police were unaware that he was teaching at Haggerston School that day. 50. On 18 December 1987 pursuant to the request of the police, ILEA sent a letter to Paget-Lewis requesting him to contact Detective Sergeant Boardman. The same day ILEA informed the police that Paget-Lewis had not attended Haggerston School. He did not return to the school again. 51. In early January 1988 the police commenced the procedure of laying an information before the Magistrates’ Court with a view to prosecuting Paget-Lewis for driving without due care and attention. In addition, Paget-Lewis’ name was put on the Police National Computer as being wanted in relation to the collision incident and on suspicion of having committed offences of criminal damage. 52. On 8 January an officer of ILEA rang Detective Sergeant Boardman for an update on the case but he was unavailable. Three days later he returned her call saying there had been no progress. 53. Between January and March 1988 Paget-Lewis travelled around England hiring cars in his adopted name of Osman and was involved in a number of accidents. He spent time at his home address during this period and continued to receive mail there. 54. On 17 January 1988 Paget-Lewis broke into a car parked near a clay-pigeon shoot near Leeds in Yorkshire and stole a shotgun. He sawed off both barrels. While the theft was reported to the local police, because there was nothing to connect the incident to Paget-Lewis the theft did not come to the attention of the Metropolitan police dealing with the case. 55. On 1, 4 and 5 March 1988 Leslie Green saw Paget-Lewis wearing a black crash helmet near the applicants’ home. According to the applicants, Mrs Green informed the police on each occasion, but her calls were not returned. The Government accept that, on 5 March 1988, Detective Sergeant Boardman received a message which stated “phone Mrs Green” but since there was no phone number on the note he did not connect the message with the mother of Leslie Green. 56. On 7 March 1988 Paget-Lewis was seen near the applicants’ home by a number of people. At about 11 p.m. Paget-Lewis shot and killed Ali Osman and seriously wounded Ahmet. He then drove to the home of Mr Perkins where he shot and wounded him and killed his son. 57. Early the next morning Paget-Lewis was arrested. On being arrested he stated “why didn’t you stop me before I did it, I gave you all the warning signs?” 58. Later that day Paget-Lewis was interviewed by the police. According to the record of the interview, Paget-Lewis said that he had been planning the attacks ever since he lost his job, and for the previous two weeks he had been watching the Osmans’ house. Although he considered Mr Perkins as his main target, he also regarded Ali and Ahmet Osman as being responsible for his losing his position at Homerton House. Paget-Lewis stated that he had been hoping in the back of his mind that the police would stop him. He admitted holding the family at gunpoint as they returned to the house, making Ali and Ahmet Osman kneel down in the kitchen, turning out the light and shooting at them. He denied that on earlier occasions he had damaged the windows of the Osmans’ house but admitted that he had let down the tyres of their car as a prank. He also denied responsibility for the graffiti and taking the files from the school office. 59. On 28 October 1988 Paget-Lewis was convicted of two charges of manslaughter having pleaded guilty on grounds of diminished responsibility (see paragraph 73 below). He was sentenced to be detained in a secure mental hospital without limit of time pursuant to section 41 of the Mental Health Act 1983. 60. An inquest was held into the death of Ali Osman after the conclusion of the criminal proceedings. Since a person had been convicted in connection with the death, the Coroner did not hold a full inquest (section 16 of the Coroner’s Act 1988). 61. On 28 September 1989 the applicants commenced proceedings against, inter alios, the Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis alleging negligence in that although the police were aware of Paget-Lewis’ activities since May 1987 they failed to apprehend or interview him, search his home or charge him with an offence before March 1988. Orders for discovery of documents were made on 24 April 1990. 62. On 19 August 1991 the Metropolitan Police Commissioner issued an application to strike out the statement of claim on the ground that it disclosed no reasonable cause of action. The High Court judge dismissed the application. 63. On 7 October 1992 the Court of Appeal upheld the appeal by the Commissioner (Osman and another v. Ferguson and another [1993] 4 All England Law Reports at p. 344). In its judgment, the court held that in light of previous authorities no action could lie against the police in negligence in the investigation and suppression of crime on the grounds that public policy required an immunity from suit. 64. Lord Justice McCowan found, inter alia: “In my judgment the plaintiffs [the applicants] have therefore an arguable cause that as between [the second applicant] and his family, on the one hand and the investigating officers, on the other, there existed a very close degree of proximity amounting to a special relationship.” 65. However, having regard to the judgment of the House of Lords in the case of Hill v. Chief Constable of West Yorkshire (see paragraphs 90–92 below), from which he found no relevant distinction, he considered that the matters in issue were failures in investigation of crime and thus public policy doomed the action to failure. He rejected the argument that where the class of victim was sufficiently proximate and sufficiently small the public policy argument might not apply. He found that Lord Keith in the Hill case had treated public policy as a separate point that is not reached unless there is a duty of care. The second judge in the Court of Appeal, Lord Justice Beldam, also held that on grounds of public policy the claims were not maintainable but refrained from expressing an opinion as to whether the facts, if proved, were sufficient to establish a relationship sufficiently proximate to found a duty of care. Lord Justice Simon Brown agreed with the judgment of Lord Justice McCowan. The applicants’ claim was accordingly struck out. 66. The Court of Appeal refused leave to appeal to the House of Lords and the application to the House of Lords for leave to appeal was refused on 10 May 1993. 67. The domestic courts had not established the full facts of the case since Paget-Lewis pleaded guilty to the charges against him and a full inquest was not conducted into the death of Ali Osman (see paragraph 60 above). Furthermore, the applicants’ civil action against the police was struck out as showing no reasonable cause of action (see paragraph 65 above). Having examined the submissions and materials of the parties especially as regards the facts in dispute the Commission proceeded to the establishment of the facts of the case. Its findings may be summarised as follows. 68. As to the four meetings which took place between the police and the school between 3 March and 17 March 1987 (see paragraph 21 above), the Commission was satisfied that the police were made aware of the substance of the events and of the school’s concerns about the disturbing attachment which Paget-Lewis was showing towards Ahmet Osman as well as Paget-Lewis’ worrying reaction towards Leslie Green. Furthermore, Mr Prince had in all probability informed Detective Inspectors Newman and Clarke on 4 May 1987 (see paragraph 27 above) about the graffiti incident, the theft of the school files and Paget-Lewis’ change of name, even if both officers had no recollection of having been told about the first two matters. Like the meetings between PC Williams and Mr Prince, no police notes appear to have been taken. However, the Commission did not find it established that at this stage the police had made any commitment to searching Paget-Lewis’ home or were seriously concerned about the possibility of Paget-Lewis kidnapping Ahmet. These hypotheses emerge from the memoranda drawn up by ILEA officers around this time (see paragraph 28 above) and were probably based on the contacts which the officers had with Mr Prince and not on any direct contact between the officers and the police. 69. While all the vandalism on the Osmans’ home and property between May and November 1987 had been reported to the police and the family had informed the police of its concern that Paget-Lewis was behind the attacks, the only step taken during that period was to invite Paget-Lewis to the police station for an interview (see paragraph 37 above). In the Commission’s opinion, little reliance could be placed on Paget-Lewis’ later assertions that he told PC Adams during the interview that he was in danger of doing something criminally insane. No police notes or records of this meeting which took place on an unspecified date could be traced. 70. Following the alleged ramming incident (see paragraph 38 above), the police immediately interviewed the Greens and the Osmans and photographed the graffiti at the school (see paragraphs 42 and 43 above). Although Detective Sergeant Boardman in his undated report (see paragraph 45 above) had stated that there was no evidence that Paget-Lewis was responsible for the graffiti and the attacks on the Osmans’ home the police had nevertheless taken the view that he was presenting a sufficient threat that formal steps should be taken against him. Thus the decision was taken on 16 December 1987 to arrest Paget-Lewis on suspicion of criminal damage. The Commission was also satisfied that there was no evidence that Paget-Lewis had made any direct or indirect threats against the Osmans during his meeting with ILEA officers on 15 December 1987 (see paragraph 46 above). It placed greater weight on the contemporaneous notes of the meeting rather than on the statement of one of the officers taken several months later that Paget-Lewis threatened at the meeting to commit a “Hungerford massacre”. According to the notes of the meeting, Paget-Lewis is reported as having stated that he would not do a “Hungerford” at the school but would see the deputy at home. In the Commission’s view, this would explain why the police requested that a casual watch should be kept on Mr Perkins’ address. Furthermore, despite the wording of the ILEA memorandum of 8 December and of Mr Prince’s rather cryptic diary entry on 16 December 1987 (see paragraphs 41 and 48 above) it seemed unlikely that the police had referred to or promised police protection to the Osman family especially since none was in fact envisaged or provided. The school authorities had probably received this impression from the assurances given by the police that the necessary measures were being taken to deal with the situation including the vague threats made against Mr Perkins. 71. The Commission did not find it established that the letter sent by the ILEA to Paget-Lewis at the request of the police following the failed arrest attempt on 17 December 1987 caused Paget-Lewis to disappear (see paragraph 50 above). It was also satisfied that the police took no further active steps to trace the whereabouts of Paget-Lewis from 18 December 1987 to March 1988 apart from placing his name on the Police National Computer in January 1988. In addition, there were no contemporaneous records to support the assertion that Mrs Green had informed the police about Paget-Lewis being seen by her son around the Osman home in early March 1988 (see paragraph 55 above). It may have been the case that Mrs Green merely left a message with the police station that Detective Sergeant Boardman should ring her back. In that event, it was not surprising that Detective Sergeant Boardman had not been able to make a connection between a Mrs Green and the Paget-Lewis file since the case had been dormant for three months. 72. The offence of murder is committed if a person of sound mind unlawfully kills any human being with malice aforethought. The mental element of murder, “malice aforethought”, is established if it is proved that there was, on the part of the accused, an intention to kill, an intention to cause grievous bodily harm or an intention to do an act knowing it to be highly probable that the act will cause death or grievous bodily harm. The sentence for murder is life imprisonment. 73. The offence of manslaughter is committed if the victim is unlawfully killed by a person who, by reason of abnormality of mind, suffered from diminished responsibility – i.e. who suffered from such abnormality of mind as substantially impaired his mental responsibility for his acts. The sentence of manslaughter is imprisonment for life or for any shorter term. 74. The power to obtain a warrant to search for items that have been used, or are intended for use, in committing criminal damage is governed by section 6(1) of the Criminal Damage Act 1971 which provides: “If it is made to appear by information on oath before a justice of the peace that there is reasonable cause to believe that any person has in his custody or under his control or on his premises anything which there is reasonable cause to believe has been used or is intended for use without lawful excuse – (a) to destroy or damage property belonging to another; or (b) to destroy or damage any property in a way likely to endanger the life of another, the Justice of the Peace may grant a warrant authorising any constable to search for and seize that thing.” 75. In order for an arrest to be lawful it must first satisfy either section 24 or 25 of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 (“the 1984 Act”). 76. Under section 24 a police officer may arrest any person whom he has reasonable grounds to believe is guilty of an arrestable offence. All offences which carry a maximum sentence of five years’ imprisonment or more are considered arrestable offences (section 24(1)). 77. Under section 25 a police officer may arrest without warrant any person whom he has reasonable grounds to suspect is guilty of a non-arrestable offence provided that one of the general interest conditions apply. These include: (a) that the constable has reasonable grounds for doubting whether a name furnished by the relevant person as a name is in fact his real name (section 25(3)(a)); (b) that the constable has reasonable grounds to believe that an arrest is necessary to prevent the relevant person causing physical injury to any person or causing loss or damage to property (section 25(3)(d)(i) and (ii)); (c) that the constable has reasonable grounds to believe that an arrest is necessary to protect a child or other vulnerable person from the relevant person (section 25(3)(e)). 78. In determining whether the available information is sufficient to give rise to a reasonable suspicion, the test to be applied is that laid down by the House of Lords in Hussein v. Chang Fook Kam [1970] Appeal Cases at p. 942: “Suspicion in its ordinary meaning is a state of conjuncture or surmise where proof is lacking: ‘I suspect but I cannot prove’. Suspicion arises at or near the starting point of an investigation of which the obtaining of prima facie proof is at the end.” 79. Where a person is arrested for an offence without a warrant, or under a warrant not endorsed for bail, the custody officer at the police station where he is detained after his arrest must determine whether he has sufficient evidence to charge the person for the offence for which he has been arrested (section 37(1)(b) of the 1984 Act). In reaching this decision the custody officer must have “reasonable and probable” cause to prosecute. In Hicks v. Faulkner [1878] 8 Queen’s Bench Division at p. 167, Judge Hawkins interpreted this requirement to mean: “… an honest belief in the guilt of the accused based upon a full conviction, founded upon reasonable grounds, of the existence of a state of circumstances, which, assuming them to be true, would reasonably lead any ordinary prudent and cautious man, placed in the position of the accuser to the conclusion that the person was probably guilty of the crime imputed.” 80. The custody officer is not required to be sure that the accused person is guilty before charging him (Tempest v. Snowden [1952] 1 King’s Bench Reports at p. 130). Nor is it necessary for a charging officer to believe that the prosecution will result in a conviction (Dawson v. Vasandau [1863] 11 Weekly Reporter at p. 516). The charging officer is simply required to make an assessment of whether there is sufficient evidence to withstand examination in the course of “a fair and impartial trial” (Glinski v. McIver [1962] Appeal Cases at p. 726). 81. If the custody officer does not have sufficient evidence to charge, the arrested person must be released either on bail or without bail. However, if the custody officer has reasonable grounds to believe that the suspect’s detention is necessary to secure or preserve evidence relating to an offence for which he is under arrest or to obtain such evidence by questioning him, the custody officer may authorise the suspect’s further detention (section 37(2) of the 1984 Act). 82. In determining whether to bring criminal charges against a person, the custody officer may take into account evidence disclosing a pattern of offending. However, in D.P.P. v. P. [1991] 2 Appeal Cases at p. 447 the House of Lords stated that admissibility of such evidence is to be determined by the degree of its probative worth. The Lord Chancellor, Lord Mackay of Clashfern, said: “… the essential feature of evidence which is to be admitted is that its probative force in support of the allegation that an accused person committed a crime is sufficiently great to make it just to admit the evidence notwithstanding that it is prejudicial to the accused in tending to show that he was guilty of another crime… Once the principle is recognised that what has to be assessed is the probative force of the evidence in question, the infinite variety of circumstances in which the question arises demonstrates that there is no single manner in which this can be achieved. Whether the evidence has sufficient probative weight to outweigh its prejudicial effect must in each case be a question of fact and degree.” (at p. 460) He continued: “Where the identity of the perpetrator is in issue, and evidence of this kind is important in that connection, obviously something in the nature of what has been called in the course of argument a signature or other special feature will be necessary. To transpose this requirement to other situations where the question is whether a crime has been committed, rather than who did commit it, is to impose an unnecessary and improper restriction upon the application of the principle.” (at p. 462) 83. Section 38 of the 1984 Act provides that where an arrested person is charged with an offence, the custody officer shall order his release from police detention, either on bail or without bail, unless, inter alia, his name or address cannot be ascertained; detention is necessary for the person’s own protection or to prevent him causing physical injury to any other person or damage to property; or the person arrested will fail to appear in court to answer bail. 84. If the custody officer decides not to release the defendant, he must be produced before a Magistrates’ Court within 24 hours after his arrest who shall either commit him in custody or release him on bail. Pursuant to section 13 of Schedule 1 Part 1 to the Bail Act 1976: “The defendant need not be granted bail if the court is satisfied that there are substantial grounds for believing that the defendant, if released on bail (whether subject to conditions or not) would – (a) fail to surrender to custody, or (b) commit an offence while on bail, or (c) interfere with witnesses or otherwise obstruct the course of justice, either in relation to himself or any other person.” In taking this decision the Magistrates’ Court is required, pursuant to section 9 of Schedule 1 Part 1, to have regard to such of the following considerations as appear to it to be relevant, namely: “(a) the nature and seriousness of the offence…; (b) the character, antecedents, associations and community ties of the defendant; (c) the defendant’s record as respects the fulfilment of his obligations under previous grants of bail in criminal proceedings; (d) except in the case of a defendant whose case is adjourned for inquiries or a report, the strength of the evidence of his having committed the offence or having defaulted.” 85. Section 136 of the Mental Health Act 1983 provides: “(1) If a constable finds in a place to which the public have access a person who appears to him to be suffering from mental disorder and to be in immediate need of care or control, the constable may, if he thinks it necessary to do so in the interests of that person, or for the protection of other persons, remove that person to a place of safety… (2) A person removed to a place of safety under this section may be detained there for a period not exceeding 72 hours for the purpose of enabling him to be examined by a registered medical practitioner and to be interviewed by an approved social worker and of making any necessary arrangements for his treatment or care.” 86. Both the Magistrates’ Court and the Crown Court have the power to remand an accused person to a specified hospital for the preparation of a report on his mental condition. Section 35(2) defines an accused person as follows: “(a) in relation to the Crown Court, any person who is awaiting trial before the court for an offence punishable with imprisonment or who has been arraigned before the court for such an offence and has not yet been sentenced or otherwise dealt with for the offence on which he has been arraigned; (b) in relation to a Magistrates’ Court any person who has been convicted by the court of an offence punishable on summary conviction with imprisonment and any person charged with such an offence if the court is satisfied that he did the act or made the omission charged or he has consented to the exercise by the court of the powers conferred by this section.” If these requirements are met the court may, pursuant to section 35(3), remand the accused person to a hospital for a report if: “(a) the court is satisfied on the written or oral evidence of a registered medical practitioner, that there is reason to suspect that the accused person is suffering from mental illness, psychopathic disorder, severe mental impairment or mental impairment; and (b) the court is of the opinion that it would be impracticable for a report on his mental condition to be made if he were remanded on bail…” 87. The Crown Court may remand an accused person to a specified hospital for treatment, if it is satisfied on the evidence of two medical practitioners that he is suffering from mental illness or severe mental impairment of a nature or degree which makes it appropriate for him to be so detained (section 36(1)). 88. Following conviction for an offence punishable with imprisonment, both the Magistrates’ Court and the Crown Court have the power under section 38(1) to make an interim hospital order, where: “… the court before or by which he is convicted is satisfied, on the written or oral evidence of two registered medical practitioners (a) that the offender is suffering from mental illness, psychopathic disorder, severe mental impairment or mental impairment; and (b) that there is reason to suppose that the mental disorder from which the offender is suffering is such that it may be appropriate for a hospital order to be made in his case…” Pursuant to section 37(2) both the Magistrates’ Court and the Crown Court may also admit an offender to a hospital if: “(a) the court is satisfied, on the written or oral evidence of two registered medical practitioners, that the offender is suffering from mental illness, psychopathic disorder, severe mental impairment or mental impairment and that… (i) the mental disorder from which the offender is suffering is of a nature or degree which makes it appropriate for him to be detained in a hospital for medical treatment and, in the case of psychopathic disorder or mental impairment, that such treatment is likely to alleviate or prevent a deterioration of his condition… (b) the court is of the opinion, having regard to all the circumstances including the nature of the offence and the character and antecedents of the offender, and to the other available methods of dealing with him, that the most suitable method of disposing of the case is by means of an order under this section.” 89. In the case of Dorset Yacht Co. Ltd v. the Home Office ([1970] Appeal Cases at p. 1004), the owners of a yacht damaged by borstal boys who had escaped from the supervision of prison officers sought to sue the Home Office alleging negligence by the prison officers. The House of Lords held that in the particular case a duty of care could arise. Lord Diplock said: “I should therefore hold that any duty of a borstal officer to use reasonable care to prevent a borstal trainee from escaping from his custody was owed only to persons whom he could reasonably foresee had property situated in the vicinity of the place of detention of the detainee which the detainee was likely to steal or to appropriate and damage in the course of eluding immediate pursuit and capture.” 90. In the case of Hill v. Chief Constable of West Yorkshire ([1989] Appeal Cases at p. 53), the mother of a victim of the Yorkshire Ripper instituted proceedings against the police alleging that they had failed properly to exercise their duty to exercise all reasonable care and skill to apprehend the perpetrator of the murders and to protect members of the public who might be his victims. Lord Keith in the House of Lords found: 91. While he considered this sufficient to dispose of the appeal, Lord Keith went on to set out public-policy objections to the existence of an action in negligence against the police in the performance of their duties in the investigation and suppression of crime. “Potential existence of such liability may in many instances be in the general public interest, as tending towards the observance of a higher standard of care in the carrying on of various different types of activity. I do not, however, consider that this can be said of police activities. The general sense of public duty which motivates police forces is unlikely to be appreciably reinforced by the imposition of such liability so far as concerns their function in the investigation and suppression of crime. From time to time they make mistakes in the exercise of that function, but it is not to be doubted that they apply their best endeavours to the performance of it. In some instances the imposition of liability may lead to the exercise of a function being carried on in a detrimentally defensive frame of mind. The possibility of this happening in relation to the investigative operations of the police cannot be excluded. Further it would be reasonable to expect that if potential liability were to be imposed it would be not uncommon for actions to be raised against police forces on the ground that they had failed to catch some criminal as soon as they might have done, with the result that he went on to commit further crimes. While some such actions might involve allegations of a simple and straightforward type of failure – for example that a police officer negligently tripped and fell while pursuing a burglar – others would be likely to enter deeply into the general nature of a police investigation, as indeed the present action would seek to do. The manner of conduct of such an investigation must necessarily involve a variety of decisions to be made on matters of policy and discretion, for example as to which particular line of inquiry is most advantageously to be pursued and what is the most advantageous way to deploy the available resources. Many such decisions would not be regarded by the courts as appropriate to be called in question, yet elaborate investigation of the facts might be necessary to ascertain whether or not this was so. A great deal of police time, trouble and expense might be expected to have to be put into the preparation of the defence to the action and the attendance of witnesses at the trial. The result would be significant diversion of police manpower and attention from their most important function, that of the suppression of crime. Closed investigations would require to be reopened and retraversed, not with the object of bringing any criminal to justice but to ascertain whether or not they had been competently conducted.” 92. Lord Templeman commented: “... if this action lies, every citizen will be able to require the court to investigate the performance of every policeman. If the policeman concentrates on one crime, he may be accused of neglecting others. If the policeman does not arrest on suspicion a suspect with previous convictions, the police force may be held liable for subsequent crimes. The threat of litigation against a police force would not make a policeman more efficient. The necessity for defending proceedings, successfully or unsuccessfully, would distract the policeman from his duties. This action is misconceived and will do more harm than good.” 93. In Swinney and another v. the Chief Constable of Northumbria ([1997] Queen’s Bench Reports at p. 464), the plaintiff had passed on information in confidence to the police about the identity of a person implicated in the killing of a police officer, expressing her concern that she did not want the source of the information to be traced back to her. The information was recorded, naming the plaintiff, in a document which was left in an unattended police vehicle, which was broken into with the result that the document was stolen, came into the possession of the person implicated and the plaintiff was threatened with violence and arson and suffered psychiatric damage. The plaintiff’s claim in negligence against the police was struck out but allowed on appeal by the High Court judge. The Chief Constable appealed contending that the police owed no duty of care or alternatively that public policy precluded the prosecution of the claim since the police were immune for claims arising out of their activities in the investigation or suppression of crime. The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal. In his judgment Lord Justice Hirst referring to the cases of Dorset Yacht and Hill (see paragraphs 89–92 above) stated that he could not accept a claim of blanket immunity for the police in this case, but that there were other considerations of public policy in this case, namely, the need to protect springs of information, to protect informers and to encourage them to come forward. On the facts of the case, it was arguable that the police had assumed a responsibility of confidentiality towards the plaintiff. The case should therefore proceed to trial. 94. Lord Justice Ward held that it was arguable that: “There is a special relationship between the plaintiffs and the defendant, which is sufficiently proximate. Proximity is shown by the police assuming responsibility, and the plaintiffs relying upon that assumption of responsibility, for preserving the confidentiality of the information which, if it fell into the wrong hands, was likely to expose the first plaintiff and members of her family to a special risk of damage from the criminal acts of others, greater than the general risk which ordinary members of the public must endure with phlegmatic fortitude. It is fair, just and reasonable that the law should impose a duty, there being no overwhelming dictate of public policy to exclude the prosecution of this claim. On the one hand there is, as more fully set out in Hill v. the Chief Constable ... an important public interest that the police should carry out their difficult duties to the best of their endeavours without being fettered by, or even influenced by, the spectre of litigation looming over every judgment they make, every discretion they exercise, every act they undertake or omit to perform, in their ceaseless battle to investigate and suppress crime. The greater good rightly outweighs any individual hardship. On the other hand it is incontrovertible that the fight against crime is daily dependent upon information fed to the police by members of the public, often at real risk of villainous retribution from the criminals and their associates. The public interest will not accept that good citizens should be expected to entrust information to the police without also expecting that they are entrusting their safety to the police. The public interest would be affronted were it to be the law that members of the public should be expected, in the execution of public service, to undertake the risk of harm to themselves without the police, in return, being expected to take no more than reasonable care to ensure that the confidential information imparted to them is protected...” 95. The police have been held liable in negligence or failure in their duties in other cases. In Kirkham v. the Chief Constable of Manchester ([1989] 2 Queen’s Bench Reports at p. 283), the Court of Appeal upheld a finding of liability in negligence under the Fatal Accidents Act 1976 where the police had taken a man into custody, knew he was a suicide risk but did not communicate that information to the prison authorities. The man, diagnosed as suffering from clinical depression had committed suicide in remand prison. The police, which had assumed responsibility for the man, had owed a duty of care, which they had breached with the result that his death had ensued. 96. In Rigby and another v. Chief Constable of Northamptonshire ([1985] 2 All England Law Reports at p. 986), the High Court found the police liable to pay damages for negligence in that they had fired a gas canister into the plaintiffs’ premises in order to flush out a dangerous psychopath. There had been a real and substantial fire risk in firing the canister into the building and that risk was only acceptable if there was firefighting equipment available to put the fire out at an early stage. No equipment had been present at the time and the fire had broken out and spread very quickly. Negligence was also found in Knightley v. Johns and others ([1982] 1 All England Law Reports at p. 301) where a police inspector at the site of an accident failed to close a tunnel and ordered officers to go back through the tunnel in the face of traffic, thereby leading to a further accident. 97. In R. v. Dytham ([1979] 1 Queen’s Bench Reports at p. 722), where a police officer stood by while a man died outside a club in a murderous assault, the Court of Appeal upheld the conviction of the officer for wilful neglect to perform a duty.