Brooks v Commissioner of Police for the Metropolis & Ors

A police officer may owe duties under section 20 of the Race Relations Act 1976 where a person seeks protection, assistance, support or investigative services. The request need not be made known to each individual officer. A claim may proceed where the pleaded facts arguably establish discriminatory treatment, although serious allegations are required.

For negligence, foreseeability and proximity may remain arguable at an interlocutory stage. The question whether it is fair, just and reasonable to impose a duty depends on the circumstances and requires a balance of competing public interests. The police do not possess an absolute immunity from negligence claims concerning crime investigation, but the public-policy considerations identified in Hill v Chief Constable of West Yorkshire may justify striking out such a claim.

The claimant, an eyewitness and victim of the attack in which Stephen Lawrence was killed, sued the Commissioner and individual police officers. He alleged racial discrimination under section 20 of the Race Relations Act 1976, negligence, false imprisonment and misfeasance in public office.

HH Judge Butter QC granted summary judgment for some individual officers and for the Commissioner, while allowing other claims to continue. He held that the discrimination claims were out of time but extended time under section 68(6), and treated claims concerning protection, support and some aspects of police conduct as arguable.

The claimant appealed those decisions. The officers cross-appealed the extension of time. The central issues were whether the pleaded conduct could fall within section 20, whether negligence claims against the police were arguable, and whether the limitation discretion had been properly exercised.

1. Disposition. The claimant’s appeals were allowed. The defendants’ appeal was dismissed. The claim was permitted to proceed against the Commissioner and the individual officers other than the ninth and tenth defendants, subject to the pleaded amendments and deletions identified by the court.
2. Race discrimination. The court accepted that a person seeking services need not have made his needs known to every individual concerned with providing them. The claimant could therefore argue that he sought protection, assistance, support and investigative services. The proposed amendment to the Particulars of Claim was allowed. The court nevertheless stressed that it was not deciding whether such services were in fact sought, or whether the pleaded facts would ultimately establish breaches of statutory duty.
3. Limitation. The claims against the officers were out of time under section 68(2). The judge had considered the claimant’s psychiatric condition, lack of funds, delay and prejudice to the defendants. The discretion under section 68(6) was broad, and the Court of Appeal could interfere only if its exercise was plainly wrong. That threshold was not met.
4. Negligence. The pleaded facts arguably supported proximity because the claimant was a victim and key witness, had prolonged close dealings with the police and was not merely an ordinary member of the public. The alleged duty concerning racial training and supervision lacked sufficient proximity and was struck out. Foreseeability could not properly be resolved against the claimant at that stage, since it was arguable that officers ought reasonably to have known of his vulnerability and that inappropriate treatment might exacerbate his psychiatric condition.
5. The police were not subject to an absolute immunity in every negligence claim concerning investigation of crime. The public-policy considerations in Hill v Chief Constable of West Yorkshire remained substantially valid, but had to be balanced against other considerations, including the principle that wrongs should be remedied. In this case the balance favoured striking out the investigation allegations, given their detailed nature and the availability of other remedies.
6. The allegation of false imprisonment was arguable, including because physical restraint was not essential and even a short period of restraint could suffice. The misfeasance claim was inadequately pleaded and added nothing to the negligence claim, so it was struck out.

• Court of Appeal (Civil Division) — allowed the claimant’s appeals and dismissed the defendants’ appeal against the decisions of HH Judge Butter QC. Permission to appeal was refused.
• Central London County Court — granted summary judgment for certain individual officers and for the Commissioner, while allowing other claims to proceed; extended time for the out-of-time discrimination claims under section 68(6) of the Race Relations Act 1976.