This is not correct. Duty of Care extends even to trespassers.
what do you mean by duty of care?
if someone is on the line because:
1)they are stoned out of their brains on some illicit substance and don't know where they are
2)they have a penchent for "artwork"/criminal damage
3)they have a penchent for pyrotechnics like parsons green
I think duty of care probably only extends to scenario 1 here,and that's only to get them apprehended and taken to a place of safety/medical asessment.
case study 2 is going to cost thousands,both in legal fees and remedial work,not to mention RISK of killing/hurting themselves.sentence should be commensurate with the "value" of the crime...ie £100k damage,+legal fees paid for by community work at average wage(lets say £28k per year)
£100k damage+legal cost looks like about 6 years community service to me.
case study 3 is going to cost lives if not dealt with swiftly and robustly....no duty of care required here,just duty of stopping it if and where possibe.
would you rather use the softly softly approach to begin with,and find out that you could have stopped it but didn't.....or the zero tolerance approach and find out it was a bit of an over-reaction?