What duty of care is owed to the close family members of a Police informant? At least one major Police Force in this country apparently thinks it should be “none” – even when it is the Police themselves who have exposed the identity of that informant to a dangerous drugs gang, by an act of gross stupidity.
This week’s blog is a follow-up to last week’s story of “David”, the Police informant whose details were contained within a document which the Police ‘left behind’ after searching an address linked to the OCG (Organised Crime Group) nominal whom David had given them information about.
The consequences of this Police negligence naturally did not stop with David. At the time when he supplied the information David was living at his mother’s house (as also was David’s younger brother).
Indeed, David’s mother, whom I will identify for the purposes of this blog as “Alison”, had not only known her son was going to supply information about criminal activities to the Police, she had actively encouraged him to do so and had accompanied him to the Police Station for moral support when he went to disclose the information to Detectives.
At the conclusion of the meeting, Alison found the Police Officer’s attitude towards her son’s future safety and wellbeing lackadaisical, with the Detective Constable who had conducted the interview somewhat sarcastically offering to “look up and down the road” for them when they left the Police Station – but what she certainly didn’t expect was for the Police to deliberately take her son’s details to the criminal’s address and then leave them behind.
By the time the Police data breach occurred, David was himself in prison, but Alison was still living with David’s brother at the family address and understandably became extremely concerned for her own personal safety. A Summary of Threat and Risk in regard to the Organised Crime Group identified their members as having been involved in “possession and storing firearms” and “the shooting of two males.” The gang was involved in the bulk supply of Class A drugs in the area. They were clearly extremely dangerous individuals who were unlikely to take being crossed lightly.
As David’s mother, and still living in the address which they had until recently shared together, Alison knew that whether she was deliberately targeted, or was ‘collateral damage’, she could very literally end up in the firing line if these dangerous criminals came looking for revenge.
Alison’s mental health deteriorated badly, and she was not at all reassured when she turned to the Police for help. Despite the fact that it was Police negligence which had dropped the family into this dire situation, the local officers did not seem particularly interested in protecting Alison and her sons. A Crime Prevention Officer attended at Alison’s home and provided some cursory recommendations about fitting window locks, an external light and a CCTV camera. When the Crime Prevention Officer returned on the subsequent occasion to install the CCTV at Alison’s house, she noted that he had brought with him two uniformed officers for his own protection – but there was no suggestion that she was to receive any protection or assistance from the Police over and above the fairly routine security gadgets which were being fitted to her home. There was certainly no suggestion that the Police would assist Alison in moving address. It seemed that they were only interested in doing the bare minimum.
When I presented a claim to the Police on behalf of Alison and her younger son, this was met with defensive hostility. The Police had agreed to compensate David – after leaving the document with his details in it at the gang members address – but now sought to argue that they did not owe any duty of care or confidence to Alison or David’s brother, as they were not referred to in that document.
Referring to the Court of Appeal decision in An Informer v A Chief Constable (which I discussed in my previous blog) the Police argued that whilst there was a duty to ensure a “safety and wellbeing” of informers – whether authorised ‘Covert Human Intelligence Sources’ (CHIS) or informal ‘ad hoc’ informers like David – there was no basis for extending that duty of care to family member of an informer.
The Police brazenly sought to argue that nothing in the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 200 (RIPA) or the CHIS Code of Practice required a public authority to take into account the safety and welfare of the family of informers – at least not unless the Police gave the informer overt assurances that they would protect his family as well.
Therefore, unlike David’s case, which settled without the need to issue Court proceedings – it was necessary for me to commence action in the Civil Courts on behalf of Alison and the Police fought the case tooth and nail almost all the way to trial.
In the case of An Informer a duty was found to be owed to both the informer and members of his family and the CHIS Code of Practice does require a public authority (i.e. the Police) to “take into account….. the foreseeable consequences to others of [an informants] tasking.”
It was clear to me that the Police did owe Alison a duty of care, given her presence at the Police Station when David provided the information, and hence the officer’s direct knowledge of her and also the clear and present danger flowing from the fact that she lived in David’s home address as a close relative and could very foreseeably become a target for reprisal, whether inadvertently as a resident at that address or deliberately because of her relationship with David.
Furthermore the failure to keep safe the information David had provided, and the leaving of the document in the place and circumstances where it was left, in my view amounted to an infringement of both Alison’s and her younger son’s right to private and family life under Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR).
All of these arguments I raised and maintained in the face of the Police position which was that the only duty of care and confidence that they owed in these particular circumstances was to David and that the human rights of his family had not been infringed by their actions.
I am pleased to report that ultimately the Police’s fine points and legal evasions could not, even on their own analysis, stand up to the moral force of my client’s argument and they have recently agreed to a healthy compensation package for Alison and David’s younger brother.
Alison had encouraged her son to do the right thing in very difficult circumstances and the whole family had had their lives put at risk as a result of Police negligence.
Thankfully, all members of the family have subsequently remained safe, although the psychological torments that they suffered after this act of gross carelessness on the part of the Police must not be underestimated and the message to the Police must be loud and clear: let this never happen again.
You must be logged in to post a comment.