I might be misusing words or have the wrong idea, I’m not formally educated on the law, I look into it for fun sometimes (mainly due to lord Denning quotes). Also if this is political, or not allowed, I am happy for it to be removed!
The reasoning given in Hill v CC West Yorkshire was to prevent defensive policing (alongside proximity and like caparo stuff), which seems fair. But in recent cases like in Tindall v Thames Valley, where they’ve make something worse and still not been liable for a breach, or even had a duty of care arise.
Does it not seem as if, by avoiding ‘belt and teeth’ policing, we have found ourselves in such a position where police aren’t being defensive enough. Recent events like Novak and Cumberbatch, to me, illustrate that perhaps enough time and care to eliminate risks isn’t being taken, to such an extent where a duty should be imposed.
I would like to know if I have misinterpreted things, I end up on strange Uni thesises for most of my legal reading, so I might be wrong. And if my facts are correct, I was wondering how people feel about this and if anyone’s thought about this also?