Leach v Chief Constable of Gloucestershire Constabulary [1999] 1 WLR 1421.
Facts
The plaintiff had acted as the ‘appropriate adult’ during the police questioning of a criminal who was accused of numerous murders. Her role was voluntary, she had received no specific training, and she was given no warning of the nature of the crimes of which the accused was charged with before agreeing to act as the appropriate adult. Her role included attending interviews and crime scenes with the defendant, and at times she was even left alone with him. She suffered post traumatic stress disorder as a result of her involvement in the case and sought to recover damages from the defendant police force for the psychiatric damage which she had suffered. At first instance Batterbury J held that no duty of care existed, and the plaintiff appealed this finding.
Issues
The issue on appeal was whether the police owed a duty of care to a volunteer to consider their suitability of a volunteer for the role of appropriate adult and to provide information, support, and counselling to those undertaking such a role.
Decision/Outcome
The Court of Appeal held that a duty of care did exist. In arriving at this decision, they considered it critical that the element of proximity was established by the fact that the police had placed the plaintiff in the stressful situation. In doing so, the police had assumed a responsibility towards her. Pill LJ compared the duty to the plaintiff to that which would exist towards any member of the public who was placed in the presence of an individual known to pose a risk of verbal or physical violence.
Updated 19 March 2026
This case summary remains legally accurate. Leach v Chief Constable of Gloucestershire Constabulary [1999] 1 WLR 1421 is correctly described, and the Court of Appeal’s finding that a duty of care existed — grounded in the proximity created by the police placing the plaintiff in the stressful situation and thereby assuming responsibility towards her — continues to be cited as good law in discussions of psychiatric injury and assumed responsibility in negligence. No subsequent statutory change or appellate decision has overruled or materially qualified this case. Students should note, however, that the broader law on psychiatric injury and duty of care has continued to develop, and the Supreme Court’s decision in Paul v Royal Wolverhampton NHS Trust [2024] UKSC 1 has significantly reaffirmed and clarified the distinctions between primary and secondary victim claims following Alcock and Page v Smith. The Leach case, which concerns an assumption of responsibility to a person placed in a dangerous situation by the defendant, sits in a distinct analytical category and is not directly affected by Paul, but students researching psychiatric injury should be aware of that more recent Supreme Court guidance.
