Can I bring a claim against the Police for negligence?

Sep 15, 2022 | Publication | 0 comments

The short answer is yes, but it depends on the circumstances as there are many protections the Police have against claims in negligence brought by individuals.

Police have immunity in a suit for negligence unless it is found that the act or omission was so unreasonable that it could not be considered to be a reasonable exercise of police functions.

The effect of section 8 of the Law Reform (Vicarious Liability) Act 1983 is that the Crown is vicariously liable in respect of the tort committed by a person in the service of the Crown (police officer).

Section 43 of the Civil Liability Act (NSW) 2002 limits the circumstances in which a claim can be brought against public authorities such as the Police.

Of relevance, is section 43(2), which states the following:

“(2)  For the purposes of any such proceedings, an act or omission of the authority does not constitute a breach of statutory duty unless the act or omission was in the circumstances so unreasonable that no authority having the functions of the authority in question could properly consider the act or omission to be a reasonable exercise of its functions.”

Section 213 of the Police Act (NSW) 1990 is also of relevance as it provides protection for a member of the NSW Police Force from personal liability:

“A member of the NSW Police Force is not liable for any injury or damage caused by any act or omission of the member in the exercise by the member in good faith of a function conferred or imposed by or under this or any other Act or law (whether written or unwritten).”

In an important decision of Sullivan v Moody [2001] HCA 59, the Court considered whether a duty of care will be rejected on the basis that it imposes obligations on a public authority, inconsistent with its statutory obligations. The Court relevantly stated the following:

‘… when public authorities, or their officers, are charged with the responsibility of conducting investigations, or exercising powers, in the public interest, or in the interests of the specified class of persons, the law would not ordinarily subject them to a duty to have regards to the interests of another class of persons where that would impose upon them conflicting claims or obligations.’

The issue of whether a duty of care will be rejected on the basis that it imposes obligations on a public authority, inconsistent with its statutory obligations, was considered in the decision of

Fuller-Wilson v State of New South Wales [2018] NSWCA 218.

In 2013, Mr Wilson was killed in a motor vehicle accident. Some months later, the plaintiffs, who were members of Mr Wilson’s family, visited the accident scene and claimed to have suffered psychological injury as a consequence of discovering parts of Mr Wilson’s foot and ankle, as well as remnants of clothing containing his remains, at the scene.

The plaintiffs brought claims against the State of New South Wales for damages alleging that officers of the Police were negligent in failing to remove the remains from the accident site, and in failing to warn them that the remains might still be at the scene.

The claims were initially summarily dismissed with the primary judge being satisfied that the officers owed no duty of care of care.

The plaintiffs were successful, however, in their appeal in arguing that their claims disclosed a reasonable cause of action.

The decision noted that there is a degree of uncertainty regarding the circumstances in which the existence of a duty of care will be rejected on the basis that it imposes obligations on a public authority, inconsistent with its statutory obligations.

If you have reason to believe you have a claim against the Police, or if you require assistance in relation to a personal injury matter, please contact our personal injury team today.

The information in this publication is of a general nature and is not intended to address the circumstances of any particular individual or entity. Although we endeavour to provide accurate and timely information, we do not guarantee that the information in this publication is accurate at the date it is received or that it will continue to be accurate in the future. We are not responsible for the information of any source to which a link is provided or reference is made and exclude all liability in connection with use of these sources. If you do not wish to receive newsletters from us, please let us know.

Latest Insights

How does the court assess pain and suffering?

In New South Wales (NSW), the assessment of pain and suffering—referred to legally as non-economic loss—is governed by the Civil Liability Act 2002 (NSW) ("CLA"). This is compensation for the intangible effects of the injury, such as pain and suffering, loss of...

Property Disputes – How Can They Arise?

Property disputes arise in many different ways – not only in commercial contexts but also in residential settings.  Some of the types of property disputes include:...

Can a Child under 14 years commit a Crime?

In New South Wales, the age of criminal responsibility is 10 years old.  A child under 10 cannot be charged with a criminal offence. For children aged 10 to under 14, there is a legal presumption known as doli incapax, which assumes the child is incapable of...

Why is it important to know who your client is?

In a range of contexts, it is important to know who your client is. In most professional service contexts, the identity of the client is the starting point to providing advice.  If it is not clear who the professional advisor is advising, this can cause issues as...

Mental Harm Damages Following Birth Trauma: Lessons from Sorbello

In South Western Sydney Local Health District v Sorbello [2024] NSWCA 14, the New South Wales Court of Appeal has provided timely guidance on two important issues in personal injury litigation: how courts choose between competing expert opinions on mental harm, and...

Damages for Defamation – Newman v Whittington [2025] NSWSC 275

A family dispute resolution practitioner was awarded $150,000 in aggravated damages, $10,000 in interest, and an injunction in a recent Supreme Court of New South Wales case. The defendant posted defamatory statements about the plaintiff on WordPress, Facebook, and...

Review Panel Determines Right Hand Injury as Non-Threshold Injury

The Personal Injury Commission (PIC) has ruled in Tasseli v Insurance Australia Limited t/as NRMA Insurance [2025] NSWPICMP 49 that damage to pre-existing surgical hardware constitutes a non-threshold injury, entitling the Claimant to ongoing statutory benefits and...

What are 5 legal requirements for a business?

When a new business is set up, there are various legal aspects which should be considered.  Some are more important than others in the early stages.  Obviously the nature of the business will dictate more specific legal requirements. We set out below some...

Court Dismisses Group Proceeding

A significant class action against Waller Legal Pty Ltd has been halted after the Supreme Court of Victoria ruled that the proceeding should no longer continue as a group proceeding. The case, Jane Jones (a pseudonym) v Waller Legal Pty Ltd [2025] VSC 42, involved...