Mitchell V Glasgow City Council Summary

In the case of Mitchell v Glasgow City Council a man was attacked and killed by his neighbour, Drummond. Mr. Mitchell and Mr. Drummond were both tenants of the local authority of Glasgow City Council and were next door neighbours. The death threats to Mr. Mitchell started a long time ago. Mr. Drummond’s anti-social behavior had occurred in many occasions since 1994. He was arrested by the police and warned many times but he continued to threaten to kill Mr. Mitchell. After a further serious incident, where Drummond battered the door to Mitchell’s house with an iron bar and smashed its windows, the council called Drummond to a meeting, where he was warned of eviction for his anti-social behaviour and the threats to his neighbour. After leaving the meeting, Drummond attacked Mitchell and he died. Mitchell’s widow and her daughter brought proceedings against the local authority claiming that the council owed him a duty of care to inform him about the meeting and warn the police of the potential danger. She also claimed that the
It was held that ‘’ the state's duty to secure the right to life guaranteed by article 2 required it, in particular, to take steps to protect the lives of those involuntarily in its custody from the criminal acts of others.’’ Also, in his speech Lord Roger gave an example of a case called Bullock v Tamiami Trail Tours Inc. It was about a black couple in a bus sitting in seats for white passengers. The bus driver told a police officer about that. Meanwhile, a racist heard their conversation and he attacked the couple. It was found by the court that the harm was foreseeable. Given the facts of this case and its decision it could be argued that in the Mitchell’s case the defendant should have taken the needed measures to protect the tenant from