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

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.

The answers, solutions, explanations, and written content provided on this page represent PastPaperHero's interpretation of academic material and potential responses to given questions. These are not guaranteed to be the only correct or definitive answers or explanations. Alternative valid responses, interpretations, or approaches may exist. If you believe any content is incorrect, outdated, or could be improved, please get in touch with us and we will review and make necessary amendments if we deem it appropriate. As per our terms and conditions, PastPaperHero shall not be held liable or responsible for any consequences arising. This includes, but is not limited to, incorrect answers in assignments, exams, or any form of testing administered by educational institutions or examination boards, as well as any misunderstandings or misapplications of concepts explained in our written content. Users are responsible for verifying that the methods, procedures, and explanations presented align with those taught in their respective educational settings and with current academic standards. While we strive to provide high-quality, accurate, and up-to-date content, PastPaperHero does not guarantee the completeness or accuracy of our written explanations, nor any specific outcomes in academic understanding or testing, whether formal or informal.
No resources available.

Job & Test Prep on a Budget

Compare PastPaperHero's subscription offering to the wider market

PastPaperHero
Monthly Plan
$10
Assessment Day
One-time Fee
$20-39
Job Test Prep
One-time Fee
$90-350

Note the above prices are approximate and based on prices listed on the respective websites as of May 2025. Prices may vary based on location, currency exchange rates, and other factors.

Get unlimited access to thousands of practice questions, flashcards, and detailed explanations. Save over 90% compared to one-time courses while maintaining the flexibility to learn at your own pace.

All-in-one Learning Platform

Everything you need to master your assessments and job tests in one place

  • Comprehensive Content

    Access thousands of fully explained questions and cases across multiple subjects

  • Visual Learning

    Understand complex concepts with intuitive diagrams and flowcharts

  • Focused Practice

    Prepare for assessments with targeted practice materials and expert guidance

  • Personalized Learning

    Track your progress and focus on areas where you need improvement

  • Affordable Access

    Get quality educational resources at a fraction of traditional costs

Tell Us What You Think

Help us improve our resources by sharing your experience

Pleased to share that I have successfully passed the SQE1 exam on 1st attempt. With SQE2 exempted, I’m now one step closer to getting enrolled as a Solicitor of England and Wales! Would like to thank my seniors, colleagues, mentors and friends for all the support during this grueling journey. This is one of the most difficult bar exams in the world to undertake, especially alongside a full time job! So happy to help out any aspirant who may be reading this message! I had prepared from the University of Law SQE Manuals and the AI powered MCQ bank from PastPaperHero.

Saptarshi Chatterjee

Saptarshi Chatterjee

Senior Associate at Trilegal