Brooks v Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis

The House of Lords considered whether the police owed Mr Brooks, a surviving victim and key eyewitness to the racially motivated murder of Stephen Lawrence, common law duties of care in negligence to assess and treat him as a victim, to afford him the protection and support commonly given to a key eyewitness, and to give reasonable weight to his account. Applying the Caparo framework (foreseeability, proximity and whether it is fair, just and reasonable to impose a duty) and the principle in Hill v Chief Constable of West Yorkshire, the House held that those pleaded duties could not arguably be imposed on police officers engaged in the investigation of serious crime.

The court treated the pleaded facts as assumed for the strike-out application, took account of the Macpherson inquiry findings and the Court of Appeal's earlier rulings, and concluded that the three surviving negligence duties were inextricably bound up with the police investigatory function and were excluded by the policy considerations underlying Hill. The House therefore allowed the appeal and struck out the pleaded negligence duties against the Commissioner.

Background and facts:

• On 22 April 1993 Stephen Lawrence was murdered in a racially motivated attack. Duwayne Brooks was attacked, survived and was a key witness.
• The Macpherson Inquiry found serious deficiencies in the police investigation and criticised the treatment of Mr Brooks.

Procedural posture and relief sought:

• Mr Brooks issued civil proceedings against the Metropolitan Police Commissioner and named officers seeking damages for negligence, false imprisonment, misfeasance in public office and breaches of section 20 of the Race Relations Act 1976; he alleged psychiatric injury aggravated by police conduct.
• At first instance HHJ Butter QC struck out the claim; on appeal the Court of Appeal (see [2002] EWCA Civ 407) allowed parts of Mr Brooks' negligence claim (in respect of three duties) and allowed the false imprisonment claim to proceed.
• The Commissioner appealed to the House of Lords against the Court of Appeal's decision that three specific negligence duties were arguably owed.

Issues framed by the House:

1. Whether, on the pleaded facts, the Commissioner (and those for whom he is vicariously responsible) owed Mr Brooks any of three specific negligence duties: (a) to assess whether he was a victim and provide appropriate protection, support and treatment, (b) to afford protection and support commonly given to a key eyewitness to a serious violent crime, and (c) to afford reasonable weight to his account and act accordingly.
2. Whether, on the pleaded facts, it would be fair, just and reasonable to impose such duties (the Caparo test), or whether they are excluded by the principle in Hill and related policy considerations.

Court's reasoning:

• The House accepted that, for the purposes of strike-out, all pleaded facts should be assumed. It applied the three-stage Caparo test but emphasised the continued force of the principle in Hill v Chief Constable of West Yorkshire that, for policy reasons, the courts will not generally impose a private law duty of care on the police for the manner in which they investigate and suppress crime.
• The Lords considered developments since Hill (abolition of barristers' immunity in Arthur J S Hall & Co v Simons and jurisprudence from the European Court of Human Rights), but concluded that the core Hill principle remains sound: imposing general duties of care to victims or witnesses in the investigative context would risk unduly inhibiting police functions and would be contrary to the public interest, notwithstanding the Macpherson Report's severe criticisms of police practice in this case.
• Because the three pleaded duties were inextricably bound up with the investigatory function, they could not arguably be imposed; the appeal was therefore allowed and the negligence causes of action struck out against the Commissioner.

Other observations:

• The House noted that other causes of action (for example, false imprisonment and certain statutory or disciplinary remedies, and complaints procedures) remain available and that the Macpherson Report and subsequent regulatory and statutory reforms bear on police conduct and accountability.

Appeal allowed. The House held that, on the pleaded facts, the three alleged negligence duties could not even arguably be imposed on police officers engaged in investigating serious crime because they are inextricably bound up with the police investigatory function and are excluded by the policy considerations enunciated in Hill v Chief Constable of West Yorkshire; accordingly the pleaded negligence duties against the Commissioner were struck out.

HHJ Butter QC struck out the claim (12 February 2001). On appeal some claims against named officers were allowed and the Commissioner’s strike-out was overturned in part by the Court of Appeal ([2002] EWCA Civ 407) which held that three specified negligence duties were arguable. The Commissioner appealed to the House of Lords and the appeal was allowed ([2005] UKHL 24).