## 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.


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