Brooks (FC) (Respondent) v. Commissioner of Police for the Metropolis (Appellant) and others

The decision confirms that the core principle in Hill v Chief Constable of West Yorkshire remains good law. The police do not owe a general common‑law duty to victims or witnesses, in the course of investigating crime, to avoid causing psychiatric harm.

Such investigatory functions are incompatible with imposing broad private law duties without clear statutory or exceptional grounds. Narrow exceptions remain possible where there is an assumed responsibility or other special relationship.

The claimant was a surviving victim and key witness to a racially motivated murder. He alleged that police failures in treatment and investigation exacerbated his post‑traumatic stress disorder. He sued the Metropolitan Police Commissioner and officers in negligence and under the Race Relations Act 1976.

The Court of Appeal allowed the claimant's appeal on three pleaded negligence duties but struck out others. The Commissioner appealed to the House of Lords. The central question was whether, on the pleaded facts, the Commissioner and responsible officers arguably owed the three specific duties of care pleaded.

(1) The appeal is allowed. The pleaded duties of care asserted against the Commissioner and those for whom he is vicariously responsible are not arguably sustainable and must be struck out. (See [XV].)

(2) The starting point is the Caparo framework: foreseeability, proximity and whether it is fair, just and reasonable to impose a duty. The parties agreed on this approach. (See [X].)

(3) The House reaffirmed and reformulated the core principle of Hill v Chief Constable of West Yorkshire that police investigatory functions do not give rise to broad private law duties to individual members of the public to avoid psychiatric harm. Hill remains authoritative. The reasoning in Hill was reviewed and some observations were qualified in light of subsequent developments, but the central proposition stands. (See [XI]; [XIII].)

(4) The three pleaded duties (to assess and treat as a victim; to afford protection and support commonly afforded to a key eyewitness; to give reasonable weight to the witness account and act on it) are inextricably bound up with the police function of investigating crime. They would impose on police operational constraints incompatible with that function. On the pleaded facts these duties are therefore conclusively ruled out by Hill. (See [XIV].)

(5) The House acknowledged limited and narrowly defined exceptions remain possible. Those include cases of clear assumption of responsibility properly grounded in Hedley Byrne principles or other exceptional fact patterns. The present pleaded case does not disclose such an assumption or exceptional relationship. (See [XIII].)

(6) Practical and policy considerations support maintaining Hill: imposing wide private law duties risks defensive policing and diversion of resources from law enforcement. The existence of alternative remedies and evolving police disciplinary and complaints mechanisms was noted. (See [XIII].)

(7) Disposition: the Commissioner's appeal is allowed; the negligence claims based on the three surviving duties are struck out. (See [XV].)

• House of Lords: Allowed the Commissioner's appeal and struck out the pleaded negligence duties (21 April 2005).
• Court of Appeal: Allowed the claimant's appeal in respect of the first, second and third pleaded duties of care but dismissed other aspects; judgment reported as [2002] EWCA Civ 407 (see Annex and Agreed Issues).
• Central London County Court / High Court: Initial strike‑out and interlocutory rulings below are summarised in the Agreed Statement of Facts and Issues before the House.