The Duty Of Care On Public Bodies

Principles for implementing duty of care in health, social care or children 's and young people 's settings

4.2- outline how the principle of ‘duty of care’ can be maintained whilst supporting individuals to take risks

Principles for implementing duty of care in health, social care or children’s and young people’s settings

Claimant (Donoghue) fell ill when she drank a bottle of ginger beer which contained a decomposed snail

The Police Powers and Responsibilities Act 2000 (Qld) was introduced in Queensland on the 23rd of March, presenting a significant simplification and codification of the law involving the police powers. Police Powers and Responsibilities Regulation 2012 (Qld) works concurrently with The Police Powers and Responsibilities Act to ultimately publicize the law to police officers and the public in regards to police powers. Together, these effectively outline the obligations and safeguards which must be met when performing police duties in Queensland. This essay will discuss the ways both the Police Powers and Responsibilities Act and Police Powers and Responsibilities Regulations codifies the powers of police and how they impose safeguards against the abuse of powers in relation to questioning suspects about criminal offences.

The use of force by police is a fundamental power delegated to them to enable pursuit of their doctrine to protect and serve the greater community. Indeed, so intrinsic is this power to police, that Victoria Police invariably refer to themselves as “The Force”. It is essentially only this power which differentiates the police from the rest of us, a state sanctioned ability to manage harm in order to arrest and subdue law breaking citizens. As a society we accept police powers of arrest and force as a necessity in the maintenance of law and order and so public discourse in this matter is generally limited to cases of excess use of force, especially those resulting in fatalities. This paper aims to explore current issues in the practical

This assignment will explore, analyse and assess the powers given to the police in relevance to Section 1 of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act of 1984 (hereafter referred to as “S1. of PACE 1984”). In addition it will also give arguments in for the Act as well as arguments in opposing it; furthermore this assignment will outline the current legal position of the Act and will end by reaching a conclusion of the Police power to stop and search individuals (hereafter referred to as ‘sas’).

Police play a critical role in our legal system and form part of the executive arm of government. Police have a range of roles. According to Fitzroy Legal Service (2016) ‘the core functions of the police include enforcing the law, keeping the peace and protecting life and property.’ In order to maintain these functions, I believe the role of discretion is key to exercising how and when to invoke the law (Broadhurst & Davies 2009:2).

This effort on my part has recently led me to an important judgment of our High Court Division issued on April 7, 2003 as reported in 23 BLD (HCD) 2003. It has raised some crucial points which I want to share today with my readers. Referring to Section 54, the Judges in this case have drawn attention to aspects pertaining to the role to be played by police officers to avoid prisoners suffering abuse of proc-ess. Para 11 of this judgment observes that if a person is arrested on the basis of 'credible information, ' nature of the infor-mation and source of information must be disclosed by the police officer and also the reason why the officer believed the infor-mation. After that a fundamental distinc-tion is made -- 'Credible means

In Sullivan, these same elements were instrumental in the courts decision in determining whether a duty of care should be owed by health departments to indirect third parties. In this case, the judges were concerned with maintaining a coherence in the law and the effect a duty of care would have on their statutory duty which is outlined in the Community Welfare Act 1972 (SA) ("the Act"). In section 25, The act outlines to ‘regard the interests of the children as the paramount consideration.’ Through the application of the hill immunity, the High Court concluded in a joint judgement that no such duty of care existed and public authorities were immune to negligence claims. The High Court held that a duty of the kind alleged would be

The current law on non-fatal offences is contained in the Offences Against The Persons Act 1861 (OAPA 1861); this is an act that is over 150 years old. After facing much scrutiny from many critics the OAPA 1861 has deemed to be inadequate; leading to the suggestion of a reform to match the twenty-first century. Thus has lead to Draft Bills being set in motion in the 1980’s as well as in 1990’s that attempt to change the act to fit in with contemporary views. Despite those intentions to reform the act, no government has passed the new bill; perhaps due to many arguing that the act works in terms of practicality and suggesting that if it does work in practice, there is no need for a reform.

Despite the general principle excluding liability for omissions, liability may arise in certain exceptional circumstances. Although these situations where a duty may arise on the basis of an omission are difficult to classify, what is usually required in all of them is some element of proximity. This may be created in a number of situations which will now be looked at. In addition, in such cases, the factors for establishing a duty of care (forseeability, proximity, fair, just and reasonable) laid down in Caparo will also need to be looked at.

The protection of professionals is of great importance, as it can ensure public bodies perform to their full potential. The main case for public policy and imposing of a duty of care upon the police force has for a long time been Hill v Chief Constable of West Yorkshire . Hill concerns the Yorkshire Ripper who in the course of 5 years committed 12 murders and 8 attempted murders . Mrs. Hill brought the claim on behalf of her deceased daughter, who was killed by the ripper. The claim was not allowed due to policy considerations, which stated it could be a detriment to society to impose liability. When it comes to protection of the police, it has been argued that they are covered by ‘blanket immunity ’ following Hill’s ruling. Blanket immunity

Prakash does owe a duty of care to Shamilla. He was in breach of his

It is quite contradictory that the common law now mirrors the Conventions rights with regards to breach of confidence, but takes a more conservative approach whilst dealing with a more crucial matter in relating to article 2. Where without a right to life a secondary right to privacy is null. In most civil law jurisdictions there is no line of distinction drawn between private individuals and public authorities when it comes to imposing a liability for negligence. However the UK case law