It is reported that police arrested a man at his home in the middle of the night, drove him three miles away and "dearrested" him nine minutes later. He was left with no money, phone and bare footed and was struck by a car and killed attempting to get home.
This suggests that there is insufficient evidence pointing to criminal liability. The remainder of this answer will instead focus on whether there is any civil liability.
It is worth noting that tort claims against the police have historically been hard to achieve. As with any negligence claim, the claimant must establish that:
The first component they will need to establish is that the police owed the individual a duty of care.
In the case of Hill v Chief Constable of West Yorkshire, it was established that police owe no general duty of care to protect individuals from harm caused by third parties.
However, the case of Robinson v Chief Constable of West Yorkshire Police clarified that the police will have a duty of care where their acts or omissions create or exacerbate a risk of harm.
The facts given in the original post suggest that this exception may be satisfied, but it is at the discretion of the court based on the full facts whether this risk was material (ie not trivial).
Assuming that this is established, they must next show that there was a breach of this duty.
In Blyth v Birmingham Waterworks it was established that a breach of duty would be found if the defendant did something that a reasonable person would not do.
If the police are able to sufficiently justify acting in the way that they did, such that it is found that a reasonable member of the police could have acted in that way, then they will not be found to have breached their duty of care. On the facts given, this seems to be a straightforward breach, though it is important to remember that the article does not give an account from the police. We do not know if they have any justification for acting in the way that they did.
The final component to establish is causation. This has two prongs, factual causation and legal causation.
The case of Barnett v Chelsea and Kensington Hospital Management Committee established the use of the “But For test” in the law of tort to establish factual causation
This requires us to ask the question of whether the man would have been killed if it weren't for the officers’ actions. Clearly, he would not.
The case of Roe v Ministry of Health shows that the risk must have been reasonably foreseeable at the time without a break in the chain of causation. This established legal causation.
This is an area that could be debated. If there is a break in the so-called "chain of causation", then the police will not be liable. This will ultimately come down to the specific nature of the facts. The question the court will have to consider is whether being struck and killed by a vehicle was a foreseeable consequence of being left alone at night.
The case of Knightley v Johns established the principle that the negligent action of a third party can break the chain of causation, but only if their action was unforeseeable
The exact nature of the motorists driving is not relevant. Reasonable foreseeability needs only apply to the risk of being struck by a car under the circumstances he was left in.
