Brooks v Commissioner of Police for the Metropolis [2005] 1 WLR 1495
[2005] 2 All ER 489;[2005] UKHL 24; [2005] Po LR 157; (2005) 155 NLJ 653
NEGLIGENCE, DUTY OF CARE, POLICE DUTIES, INVESTIGATION OF SUSPECTED CRIME, DUTY OF CARE OWED TO VICTIMS,
DUTY OF CARE OWED TO WITNESSES
Facts
The claimant and his friend, who were black, were attacked by white youths. The claimant was dealt with by the police in a way that was subsequently subjected to severe criticism in the report of the inquiry into the matters arising from the friend’s death. The victim claimed damages against the police for negligence, false imprisonment, misfeasance in public office and breach of s. 20 Race Relations Act 1976. The judge struck out his action. The claimant appealed. The Court of Appeal allowed his appeal in relation to three duties of care allegedly owed to him by the police – to take reasonable steps to assess whether the claimant was a victim of a crime, to accord him reasonably appropriate protection, assistance and support as a key eye-witness to a serious crime and to afford reasonable weight to the account that he had given. The defendants appealed to the House of Lords relying on Hill v Chief Constable of West Yorkshire [1988] 2 WLR 1049.
Issues
Do the police owe a general duty of care to victims and witnesses in respect of their activities when investigating suspected crimes?
Decision/Outcome
The appeal was allowed and the claimant’s action struck out.
(1) As a matter of public policy, the police owe no general duty of care to victims and witnesses in respect of their activities when investigating suspected crimes. Such a duty would cut across the freedom of action the police should have when investigating serious crime.
(2) The core principle of Hill v Chief Constable of West Yorkshire [1988] 2 WLR 1049 still stand, but they need to be judged in light of the legal policy and the Human Rights Act 1998.
(3) The three alleged duties of care were inextricably bound up with the police function of investigating crime and therefore, the claim was struck out.
Updated 19 March 2026
This case summary remains broadly accurate as a statement of the law as decided in Brooks v Commissioner of Police for the Metropolis [2005] UKHL 24. The core principle from Hill v Chief Constable of West Yorkshire [1988] AC 53, affirmed in Brooks, that the police owe no general duty of care to victims and witnesses in the investigation of crime, continued to represent English law for some time after this article was written.
However, readers should be aware of a significant subsequent development. In Robinson v Chief Constable of West Yorkshire Police [2018] UKSC 4, the Supreme Court refined and clarified the Hill/Brooks position. The Supreme Court held that the police are not immune from negligence liability in all circumstances: where established common law principles (such as the rule in Donoghue v Stevenson regarding positive acts causing foreseeable harm) would impose a duty of care, those principles apply to the police as to anyone else. The Hill public policy immunity is properly understood as meaning only that there is no general duty of care owed by the police to the public at large when investigating crime, and not as conferring a broader immunity. Brooks itself was not overruled, but its reasoning must now be read alongside Robinson. Students should consult Robinson [2018] UKSC 4 as essential reading on this area of law.
The article’s reference to s. 20 of the Race Relations Act 1976 should also be noted: that Act has been repealed and replaced by the Equality Act 2010, though this does not affect the correctness of the case summary as a historical account of the litigation.
