Brooks v Commissioner of Police for the Metropolis & Ors [2005] UKHL 24 (21 April 2005)

Duwayne Brooks, present during Stephen Lawrence's racist murder, claimed police owed him duties of care as victim and witness. The House of Lords held that police investigating crime owe no common law duty of care to victims or witnesses that would impede their crime-fighting functions, affirming the Hill principle.

Facts

On 22 April 1993, Duwayne Brooks witnessed his friend Stephen Lawrence being fatally stabbed in a racist attack by white youths. Mr Brooks was also attacked. The subsequent police investigation was heavily criticised in the Macpherson Report, which found that Mr Brooks had been stereotyped as a hostile young black man rather than treated as a victim. Officers failed to take his account seriously, did not offer support, and did not treat him appropriately as a key witness.

Mr Brooks issued civil proceedings against the Commissioner of Police alleging negligence, false imprisonment, and misfeasance in public office. His negligence claim asserted five duties of care owed by police. The Court of Appeal allowed three duties to proceed: to assess whether he was a victim and treat him accordingly; to afford protection and support as a key witness; and to give reasonable weight to his account.

Issues

Principal Issue

Whether the police owed Mr Brooks common law duties of care to: (1) assess whether he was a crime victim and treat him appropriately; (2) afford him protection and support as a key witness; and (3) give reasonable weight to his account and act upon it.

Underlying Question

Whether the principle in Hill v Chief Constable of West Yorkshire [1989] AC 53, which held police owe no duty of care in investigating crime, applied to exclude these claimed duties.

Judgment

The House of Lords unanimously allowed the Commissioner’s appeal and struck out the negligence claims based on the three surviving duties of care.

Lord Steyn, delivering the principal speech, held that the core principle from Hill remained binding law. While acknowledging developments since Hill, including the removal of barrister immunity and reformulation in terms of absence of duty rather than blanket immunity, the essential principle remained sound.

Lord Steyn reasoned that imposing general duties of care on police towards victims and witnesses would impede their ability to perform public functions fearlessly and with despatch. Such duties would require police to deploy time and resources in every contact with potential witnesses or victims to avoid causing harm, leading to an unduly defensive approach in combating crime.

Lord Bingham observed that the three pleaded duties could not be imposed on police officers without potentially undermining performance of their crime investigation functions.

Lord Nicholls agreed there was no basis for imposing the alleged duties, which would cut across the freedom of action police require when investigating serious crime, whilst noting that exceptional cases might arise where the Hill principle should not prevent an appropriate remedy.

Implications

This case affirmed and refined the Hill principle whilst acknowledging its limits. The decision confirms that police investigating crime generally owe no duty of care to victims or witnesses in negligence. However, the Lords indicated this is not an absolute immunity and exceptional cases might arise outside the principle’s reach.

The judgment recognises that while police should treat victims and witnesses properly as a matter of ethics and professional standards, this does not translate into legal duties of care sounding in damages. Aggrieved citizens may pursue complaints through police complaints procedures or rely on specific torts such as false imprisonment or claims under the Race Relations Act 1976, but cannot frame general negligence claims arising from investigative functions.

Verdict: Appeal allowed. The Commissioner’s appeal was allowed and the respondent’s claims in common law negligence based on the three alleged duties of care were struck out.

Source: Brooks v Commissioner of Police for the Metropolis & Ors [2005] UKHL 24 (21 April 2005)