## Facts

- Mr. Brooks and his friend were victims of a racially motivated attack by white youths.
- The police investigation into the incident and the related death of Mr. Brooks' friend was criticized in a subsequent report.
- Mr. Brooks initiated legal proceedings against the police, claiming damages for negligence, false imprisonment, misfeasance in public office, and breach of section 20 of the Race Relations Act 1976.
- The initial trial judge struck out Mr. Brooks' action.
- The Court of Appeal allowed Mr. Brooks’ appeal in respect of three alleged specific duties of care: to determine if he was a victim of crime, to provide him with appropriate support as a key eyewitness, and to give due weight to his account.
- The Commissioner of Police appealed to the House of Lords, disputing the existence of such duties and asserting no duty of care was owed in these circumstances.

## Issues

1. Whether the police owe a general duty of care to victims and witnesses during the investigation of a crime.
2. Whether imposing such a duty would undermine the police’s ability to perform their core investigatory functions.
3. Whether policy considerations, including the precedent set by Hill v Chief Constable of West Yorkshire, preclude the recognition of such a duty.
4. Whether human rights considerations require establishing a general duty of care in these circumstances.

## Decision

- The House of Lords allowed the appeal and struck out Mr. Brooks’ claim.
- It was held the police do not owe a general duty of care to victims and witnesses in respect of their conduct of investigations.
- The judgment reaffirmed the authority of Hill v Chief Constable of West Yorkshire as the controlling precedent.
- The House emphasized that human rights considerations under the Human Rights Act 1998 did not justify creating a general duty of care in these circumstances.
- The Court reasoned that imposing these duties could compromise effective policing and lead to defensive tactics, detracting from the core function of investigating crime.

## Legal Principles

- Police do not owe a general duty of care to victims and witnesses in the context of criminal investigations.
- The precedent set in Hill v Chief Constable of West Yorkshire remains determinative; public policy strongly discourages imposing general duties of care that might undermine effective law enforcement.
- Policy concerns include the risk of defensive policing, diversion of resources, and increased litigation, all potentially impeding police operations.
- Alternative legal mechanisms exist for redress in cases of police misconduct, such as actions for misfeasance in public office or claims under human rights legislation.

## Conclusion

The House of Lords confirmed that police are not subject to a general duty of care towards victims and witnesses during investigations, maintaining operational autonomy and reaffirming established legal precedent from Hill v Chief Constable of West Yorkshire.

Brooks v Commissioner of Police for the Metropolis [2005] 1 WLR 1495 (HL)