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

Facts

  • The case concerned a claim against the Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis regarding the alleged negligent treatment of a victim and witness during a criminal investigation.
  • The claimant argued that police failures during the investigation constituted a breach of duty of care.
  • The case reached the House of Lords for clarification on whether police owe a duty of care to victims or witnesses in the course of their investigative functions.

Issues

  1. Whether police owe a duty of care to individuals (specifically victims or witnesses) during the conduct of criminal investigations.
  2. Whether treating a victim as a witness changes the legal relationship to create such a duty.
  3. The applicability and scope of exceptions to the general rule, notably in cases of assumption of responsibility by police.
  4. The distinction between operational negligence and policy decisions for purposes of police liability.
  5. The impact of European Convention on Human Rights (specifically Articles 2 and 3) on the duty of care analysis.

Decision

  • The House of Lords held that, as a general rule, police do not owe a duty of care to victims or witnesses during criminal investigations, even if negligent.
  • The Court reaffirmed the public policy principle prioritizing effective crime prevention and detection over liability arising from investigative errors.
  • The judgment extended the principle from Hill v Chief Constable of West Yorkshire to cover specific victims and witnesses, not just the public at large.
  • The Court identified a high threshold for exceptions, requiring a clear and specific assumption of responsibility by police towards an individual.
  • Police may be liable for operational negligence (e.g., negligent driving) but are generally immune regarding policy decisions about investigations.
  • The existence of a potential human rights claim (under Article 2 or 3 ECHR) does not create a parallel common law duty of care.

Legal Principles

  • General principle: police owe no common law duty of care to individuals in relation to their investigative functions, even to victims or witnesses.
  • Public policy concerns, such as the risk of defensive policing and diversion of resources, underpin the limitation of duty.
  • The Hill principle was affirmed and applied, extending immunity to include specific victims and witnesses.
  • Exceptions to the no-duty rule arise only where police have clearly assumed responsibility, requiring more than routine engagement and a demonstration of specific reliance.
  • Liability may arise for operational negligence but does not generally extend to policy-based decisions on resource allocation or investigative priorities.
  • The existence of an ECHR right does not automatically equate to a common law duty.

Conclusion

The House of Lords in Brooks v Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis confirmed that police generally owe no duty of care to victims or witnesses in criminal investigations, except in rare circumstances where a distinct assumption of responsibility can be established, emphasizing the primacy of public policy considerations and operational effectiveness in law enforcement.

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