No duty of care to parents

D v East Berkshire Community Health NHS Trust and another and two related cases HL TLR 22 April

The claimants were parents against whom unfounded allegations of child abuse had been made by health care and other childcare professionals. The parents claimed that as a result of the allegations, they had suffered psychiatric injury. The claim involved two counterveiling interests, each of high social importance which called for consideration: the need to safeguard children from parental abuse, and the need to protect parents from unnecessary interference with their family life. The essence of the parents’ claims was that health professionals responsible for protecting a suspected child victim owed the suspect a duty to investigate their suspicions diligently, a duty sounding in damages if they acted in good faith but carelessly. Stated in that broad form, that was a surprising proposition. In that area of the law, concerned with the reporting and investigation of suspected crime, the balancing point between the public interest and that of the suspect had long been the presence or absence of good faith. That was required, but no more. A report made to the appropriate authorities that a person had or might have committed a crime attracted qualified privilege; a false statement attracted a remedy if made maliciously. Misfeasance in public office called for an element of bad faith or recklessness; malice was an essential ingredient of criminal or civil proceedings. The existence of the duty for which the parents contended would fundamentally alter the balance; it would mean that if a parent suspected a babysitter or a teacher of abuse and took the child to a general practitioner, the doctor would owe the suspect a duty of care. At common law interference with family life did not justify according a suspected parent a higher level of protection than other suspected perpetrators. A doctor was obliged to act in the best interests of his patient; here that was the child. He was charged with the protection of the child, not of the parent. The action was struck out.