Brooks v. Commissioner of Police for the Metropolis & Ors

Factual and Procedural Background

The Respondent was present when his friend (“Friend”) was fatally stabbed during a racially-motivated attack on 22 April 1993. The Respondent was himself verbally abused and assaulted. An official public inquiry later found that the police investigation of the murder was seriously mishandled and that the Respondent had not been treated properly.

In April 1999 the Respondent issued civil proceedings against the Commissioner (who is vicariously liable for the involved officers) and several named officers. Claims were advanced for (i) negligence, (ii) false imprisonment, (iii) misfeasance in public office and (iv) breach of statutory duty under section 20 of the Race Relations Act 1976. The Crown Prosecution Service and two individual officers were later removed as defendants.

At first instance parts of the negligence claim were struck out. The Court of Appeal reinstated three specific alleged duties of care, striking out others, but gave no detailed reasons for distinguishing between them. The Commissioner appealed to the House of Lords. The only question before the House was whether, assuming the pleaded facts to be true, the three surviving duties of care were even arguably owed in common law negligence.

Legal Issues Presented

1. Whether there was sufficient proximity between the Commissioner (and officers for whom he is responsible) and the Respondent to give rise to duties to:
   1. assess whether the Respondent was a victim of crime and provide appropriate protection, support and assistance;
   2. afford the Respondent the protection, assistance and support normally given to a key eyewitness to a serious violent crime; and
   3. give reasonable weight to the Respondent’s account and act upon it.
2. Whether it was fair, just and reasonable to impose those duties in light of public-interest considerations recognised in previous authority, particularly Hill v Chief Constable of West Yorkshire.

Arguments of the Parties

Commissioner’s Arguments

• The police’s prime public function is to preserve the peace and investigate crime; imposing private law duties to victims or witnesses risks undermining that function.
• The principle in Hill v Chief Constable of West Yorkshire establishes that, absent a special assumption of responsibility, no duty of care is owed in respect of investigative acts or omissions.
• Existing case law (Calveley, Alexandrou, Elguzouli-Daf, Kumar) confirms that the courts should not extend negligence liability to police investigations.

Respondent’s Arguments

• Hill does not bar liability where the police themselves, by positive acts or omissions, directly harm a victim or key witness with whom they have contact.
• The police owed a general duty not to cause foreseeable psychiatric harm to victims or witnesses of serious crime; the three pleaded duties are concrete expressions of that obligation.
• Striking out is inappropriate in a developing area of law; the case should proceed to trial for full factual exploration (relying on cautionary remarks in Waters v Commissioner).

Table of Precedents Cited

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

All members of the appellate panel concurred that the pleaded duties of care could not sensibly be imposed on police officers engaged in investigating a serious crime.

• Exhaustive factual record: The incident and subsequent investigation had already been thoroughly examined by a public inquiry; no further factual development was likely.
• Application of the Hill principle: The three duties were “inextricably bound up” with core investigative functions. Extending negligence liability would risk defensive policing, divert resources and undermine the public interest in effective law enforcement.
• Caparo analysis: Even assuming foreseeability of psychiatric harm, the required proximity was absent and it would not be fair, just and reasonable to impose the duties.
• No assumption of responsibility: The pleadings disclosed no conduct by the police amounting to a voluntary undertaking of responsibility towards the Respondent within the Hedley Byrne line of authority.
• Comparative and human-rights considerations: While some foreign jurisdictions have adopted broader duties, domestic legal policy—read consistently with the Human Rights Act 1998—supports maintaining the Hill boundary, albeit expressed as an absence of duty rather than immunity.
• Exceptional cases left open: The Court accepted that “outrageous” or exceptional circumstances might justify liability, but the present facts did not approach that threshold.

Holding and Implications

APPEAL ALLOWED. The three surviving negligence claims are struck out.

Immediate consequence: the Respondent’s common-law negligence allegations against the Commissioner and the officers cannot proceed, although his other statutory and intentional-tort causes of action remain unaffected.

Broader impact: the judgment reaffirms the enduring effect of Hill v Chief Constable of West Yorkshire while acknowledging its reformulation as an “absence of duty” rule. It signals that only truly exceptional cases—where denying a remedy would affront fundamental common-law principles—might justify departure from this position. No new precedent is created, but the decision consolidates existing authority against extending negligence liability for police investigative functions.