CJ and others (Appellants) v Chief Constable of Wiltshire Police (Respondent)

Permission to Appeal application lodged

Case summary
Linked cases
Appeal
Previous proceedings

Case summary

Case ID

UKSC/2025/0045

Parties

Appellant(s)

CJ and PJ, HD and PD

Respondent(s)

The Chief Constable of Wiltshire Police

Issue

Is the respondent liable in negligence for harm caused to victims of child sexual assault and rape following an ineffective investigation by the police? Was the respondent under and did it breach its duty to investigate under article 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights?

Facts

The appellants are each victims of sexual offences. They are entitled to anonymity and the Court of Appeal has made an order prohibiting the disclosing of any information that may lead to the identification of the appellants or their litigation friends. The publication of the names and addresses of the appellants or of any member of the appellants’ immediate family is prohibited. In 2012, a mother and daughter discovered indecent images of children on the family laptop. They challenged the male members of the household, no one admitted responsibility for the images. They reported the matter to the police and the respondent’s constable seized the laptop that evening. The images had in fact been created by her teenage son, MP. He had gone on to commit sexual offences against each of the appellants between 2013 and 2015. Suspicion initially fell on MP’s father, BP, as he was imprisoned years previously for a sexual offence against his daughter. The laptop was given a low-to-middle priority for examination. The respondent’s constable retained control of the case and received a report on the examination in May 2014. He took no action. In 2015, following complaints of sexual abuse by MP made to the police on behalf of one of the appellants, the respondent’s constable provided the report to the investigating officer. MP ultimately was charged, plead guilty, and imprisoned. The High Court dismissed the appellants’ claims finding that there was no liability in negligence in this case for the respondent’s failure to act nor was the duty to investigate under article 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights engaged. The Court of Appeal upheld that decision. The appellants now appeal to the Supreme Court.