Information for "Dobson v Chief Constable of Leicestershire Police (2025) EWHC 272 (KB)"
Basic information
| Display title | Dobson v Chief Constable of Leicestershire Police [2025] EWHC 272 (KB) |
| Default sort key | Dobson v Chief Constable of Leicestershire Police (2025) EWHC 272 (KB) |
| Page length (in bytes) | 1,298 |
| Page ID | 16233 |
| Page content language | en - English |
| Page content model | wikitext |
| Indexing by robots | Allowed |
| Number of redirects to this page | 0 |
| Counted as a content page | Yes |
Page protection
| Edit | Allow only users with "editing" permission (infinite) |
| Move | Allow only users with "editing" permission (infinite) |
Edit history
| Page creator | Jonathan (talk | contribs) |
| Date of page creation | 11:59, 13 February 2025 |
| Latest editor | Jonathan (talk | contribs) |
| Date of latest edit | 11:59, 13 February 2025 |
| Total number of edits | 1 |
| Total number of distinct authors | 1 |
| Recent number of edits (within past 90 days) | 1 |
| Recent number of distinct authors | 1 |
Page properties
| Transcluded templates (8) | Templates used on this page:
|
SEO properties
Description | Content |
Article description: (description)This attribute controls the content of the description and og:description elements. | After arrest and release, the claimant took an insulin overdose and suffered life changing injuries. He argued that the police owed a duty of care, having assumed responsibility to protect him from harm, and had breached that duty by not further detaining him pending a full mental health assessment. The judge held that: (1) the defendant had not assumed responsibility to protect the claimant from self-harm after release: appropriate mental health and risk assessments had been carried out in custody and, in any event, there was no basis to detain him (s136 could not have been used as he was not in immediate need of care or control, and there is no distinct common law right to detain pending a mental health assessment as that would defeat the legislative purpose of s136); (2) counterfactually, were there a duty there would be no breach, and were there a breach there would be no causation; (3) Article 2 was not engaged because there was no evidence of a real and immediate risk to life, and in any event would bring nothing new. |