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

Police officers investigating crime do not generally owe victims or witnesses a common law duty to protect them from psychiatric harm caused by the manner of the investigation. A duty to assess and treat a person as a victim, support that person as a key witness, or give proper weight to the person's account would be inseparable from the investigative function. Imposing such duties would risk defensive policing and impede the effective performance of functions carried out for the public benefit.

The principle is one of absence of a duty of care, rather than blanket immunity. Liability may still arise under other torts, statute or an assumption of responsibility. Exceptional cases at the margins remain open for decision when they arise.

Duwayne Brooks was attacked with Stephen Lawrence and witnessed Lawrence's murder. He alleged that police failures and racially stereotyped treatment aggravated his post-traumatic stress disorder. His civil proceedings included claims in negligence, false imprisonment, misfeasance in public office and under the Race Relations Act 1976.

The county court struck out the entire claim against the Commissioner. The Court of Appeal, in [2002] EWCA Civ 407, restored the false imprisonment claim and three negligence duties, while leaving two other negligence duties struck out and dismissing the misfeasance appeal. Only the three restored negligence duties reached the House. The issue was whether the police arguably owed duties to assess and treat Brooks as a victim, support him as a key eyewitness, and give reasonable weight to his account.

Appeal allowed unanimously. The three surviving negligence duties were struck out.

1. Lord Steyn delivered the leading speech. Lord Rodger and Lord Brown expressly agreed with it. Lord Bingham and Lord Nicholls agreed in the result and in substance that none of the pleaded duties could sensibly be imposed. On a strike-out application, every pleaded factual allegation was assumed capable of proof. It was also assumed that the police negligence foreseeably aggravated the respondent's psychiatric injury.

2. Per Lord Steyn, the core principle in Hill v Chief Constable of West Yorkshire remained valid, but should be expressed as an absence of a duty of care rather than a blanket immunity. The police must be free to prevent and investigate crime, protect life and property, apprehend offenders and preserve evidence. General duties to avoid harm to victims and witnesses during those activities would inhibit robust decision-making, divert time and resources, and encourage defensive policing.

3. The three pleaded duties were inextricably connected with the investigation of crime. A duty to assess and treat a person as a victim, a duty to provide the protection and support commonly afforded to a key eyewitness, and a duty to give reasonable weight to that person's account could not be separated from choices made in conducting the investigation. The principle in Hill v Chief Constable of West Yorkshire, as reformulated, therefore conclusively excluded them.

4. The rule does not create universal immunity. Per Lord Steyn, an assumption of responsibility under the extended Hedley Byrne & Co Ltd v Heller and Partners Ltd doctrine falls outside the principle. Other torts and statutory remedies may also remain available. Lord Nicholls added that an exceptional case may require a damages remedy where its absence would affront the principles underlying the common law. The House left unusual cases at the margins to be decided if they arise.

5. Lord Rodger emphasised that ethical and professional duties do not automatically become legal duties of care. Police officers should treat witnesses with courtesy and consideration and may face disciplinary proceedings for failing to do so, but those obligations did not establish the pleaded private-law duties.

1. House of Lords: Allowed the Commissioner's appeal unanimously and struck out the three surviving negligence duties.
2. Court of Appeal: In [2002] EWCA Civ 407, restored the negligence claims concerning the first three alleged duties and the false imprisonment claim. It upheld the striking out of the fourth and fifth negligence duties, dismissed the misfeasance appeal, allowed Brooks's appeal concerning the named officers, and dismissed their limitation cross-appeal.
3. Central London County Court: HHJ Butter QC struck out the entire claim against the Commissioner on 12 February 2001. In an earlier decision of 29 March 2000, he rejected the named officers' limitation argument but struck out some claims under section 20 of the Race Relations Act 1976.