Attorney General v Hartwell (British Virgin Islands) [2004] 1 WLR 1273;
[2004] UKPC 12; [2004] PIQR P27; [2004] Po LR 141; [2004] Inquest LR 89; (2004) 101(12) LSG 37; (2004) 148 SJLB 267
NEGLIGENCE, DUTY OF CARE, POLICE DUTIES, BREACH OF DUTY,
ACCESS TO A GUN, UNLAWFUL USE OF GUN,
UNSUITABLE PERSON ENTRUSTED WITH A GUN
Facts
L, a British Virgin Islands policeman, abandoned his post and travelled to another island. He went into a bar, where his former partner worked as a waitress, and opened fire with a police service revolver. The plaintiff, Hartwell, was a British tourist who was at the bar and was shot and wounded by the policeman. L pleaded guilty to the charges of unlawful and malicious wounding and having a firearm with intent to do grievous bodily harm. Hartwell brought civil proceedings against L and the Attorney General of the British Virgin Islands as a representative of its government. The court held in favour of the plaintiff. The Attorney General appealed to the Privy Council submitting that the government owed no duty of care to the plaintiff in respect of the persons to whom the police entrusted firearms as there was no sufficiently proximate relationship between the police and Hartwell.
Issues
When entrusting an officer with a firearm, do the police owe a duty to take reasonable care to see that the officer was a suitable person to be entrusted with a dangerous weapon?
Decision/Outcome
The appeal was dismissed.
(1) Referring to Home Office v Dorset Yacht Co Ltd [1970] AC 1004, the police owe a duty of care to the public at large to take reasonable care to see that police officers to whom they entrusted weapons were suitable. The wide reach of the duty is proportionate to the gravity of the risk.
(2) The police was negligent in permitting L to have access to a revolver, given that they knew or ought to have known that he was not a fit and proper person to be entrusted with a gun because, until his domestic problems were resolved, he was volatile and unstable. The standard of diligence expected of a reasonable person when entrusting another with a firearm was high. The police are therefore, liable in negligence.
Updated 19 March 2026
This case summary remains accurate. Attorney General v Hartwell [2004] UKPC 12 is a Privy Council decision on appeal from the British Virgin Islands and continues to be cited as good authority for the proposition that a police authority owes a duty of care to the public when entrusting officers with firearms, and that the standard of care in doing so is high. The case’s reliance on Home Office v Dorset Yacht Co Ltd [1970] AC 1004 remains sound, as that decision has not been overruled. No subsequent statutory changes or later appellate decisions appear to have materially altered the principles described. Readers should note that this is a Privy Council decision from the British Virgin Islands; while Privy Council decisions are highly persuasive in English and Welsh courts, they are not strictly binding, and the application of negligence principles to police liability in English law has continued to develop in cases such as Robinson v Chief Constable of West Yorkshire Police [2018] UKSC 4, which affirmed that the police can owe a duty of care where they create a danger causing foreseeable harm to individuals. The core principle in Hartwell — that entrusting an unsuitable person with a dangerous weapon can give rise to liability — is consistent with that broader framework.
