Brooks v. Commissioner of Police for the Metropolis et al., (2005) 338 N.R. 1 (HL)

• Case Date: April 21, 2005
• Jurisdiction: Canada (Federal)
• Citations: (2005), 338 N.R. 1 (HL)

Brooks v. Police Commr. (2005), 338 N.R. 1 (HL)

MLB headnote and full text

Temp. Cite: [2005] N.R. TBEd. JN.019

Brooks (FC) (respondent) v. Commissioner of Police for the Metropolis (appellant) and others

([2005] UKHL 24)

Indexed As: Brooks v. Commissioner of Police for the Metropolis et al.

House of Lords

London, England

Lord Bingham of Cornhill, Lord Nicholls of Birkenhead, Lord Steyn, Lord Rodger of Earlsferry and Lord Brown of Eaton-under-Heywood

April 21, 2005.

Summary:

The plaintiff, Brooks, and his friend, Law­rence, two eighteen year old black youths, were attacked by a gang of "young white thugs". The attack was racially motivated. Lawrence died from stab wounds in less than an hour. Brooks survived the attack and was the key witness to the attack. A public in­quiry report was critical of the way the police treated Brooks following the attack. No successful criminal prosecution was ever brought against the assailants. Brooks com­menced civil proceedings against the Metro­politan Police Commissioner and numerous police officers, claiming damages for post traumatic stress problems, arguing that his problems arose or were exaggerated by the way he was treated by the police following the attack and death of his friend. In the context of whether the pleadings should be struck, an issue arose as to whether the Commissioner and the officers for whom he was responsible arguably owed Brooks a common law duty sounding in damages to:

(1) take reasonable steps to assess whether Brooks was a victim of crime and then to accord him reasonably appropriate protec­tion, support, assistance and treatment if he was so assessed;

(2) take reasonable steps to afford Brooks the protection, assistance and support com­mon­ly afforded to a key eye-witness to a serious crime of violence; and

(3) afford reasonable weight to the account that Brooks gave and to act upon it accord­ingly.

The House of Lords held that Brooks' claims in common law negligence should be struck out. The court found no basis for imposing on the police any of the three legal duties asserted by Brooks on this appeal.

Police - Topic 2204

Duties - General duties - Common law duties - Brooks and Lawrence were at­tacked by a gang in a racially motivated incident, wherein Lawrence died - Brooks sued the police and police com­missioner for damages, claiming that the way the po­lice treated him following the attack and the death of his friend caused or exagger­ated his post-traumatic stress prob­lems - At issue in this appeal was whether police owed a common law duty of care to wit­nesses and victims such as Brooks - In par­ticular it was argued that the police had the following duties: (1) to take reasonable steps to assess whether Brooks was a vic­tim of crime and then to accord him rea­sonably appropriate protection, support, assistance and treatment if he was so as­sessed; (2) to take reasonable steps to afford Brooks the protection, assistance and support commonly afforded to a key eye-witness to a serious crime of violence; and (3) afford reasonable weight to the ac­count that Brooks gave and to act upon it accordingly - The House of Lords dis­missed Brooks' claims in common law neg­li­gence, holding that there was no basis for imposing these duties on police.

Cases Noticed:

J.D. v. East Berkshire Community Health NHS Trust et al., [2005] UKHL 23; 337 N.R. 74, refd to. [para. 3].

Hill Estate v. Chief Constable of West Yorkshire, [1989] A.C. 53; 102 N.R. 241 (H.L.), appld. [paras. 3, 6, 17].

Waters v. Metropolitan Police Commis­sioner, [2000] 1 W.L.R. 1607 (H.L.), refd to. [para. 16].

Caparo Industries v. Dickman et al., [1990] 2 A.C. 605; 108 N.R. 81 (H.L.), refd to. [para. 17].

Dorset Yacht Co. v. Home Office, [1970] A.C. 1004 (H.L.), refd to. [para. 19].

Calveley et al. v. Chief Constable of the Merseyside Police, [1989] A.C. 1228; 103 N.R. 125 (H.L.), refd to. [para. 20].

Alexandrou v. Oxford, [1993] 4 All E.R. 328 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 21].

Ancell v. McDermott, [1993] 4 All E.R. 355 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 21].

Osman v. Ferguson, [1993] 4 All E.R. 344 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 21].

Cowan v. Chief Constable for Avon and Somerset Constabulary (2002), H.L.R. 830 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 21].

Elguzouli-Daf v. Commissioner of Police, [1995] Q.B. 335 (C.A.), refd to. [paras. 22, 38].

Hedley Byrne & Co. v. Heller and Partners Ltd., [1964] A.C. 465 (H.L.), refd to. [para. 22].

Jane Doe v. Board of Police Commis­sioners of Metropolitan Toronto et al. (1989), 58 D.L.R.(4th) 396 (Ont. H.C.), affd. (1990), 40 O.A.C. 161; 72 D.L.R.(4th) 580 (Div. Ct.), refd to. [para. 24].

Jane Doe v. Board of Police Commis­sioners of Metropolitan Toronto et al. (1998), 60 O.T.C. 321; 160 D.L.R.(4th) 697 (Gen. Div.), refd to. [para. 24].

Odhavji Estate et al. v. Woodhouse et al., [2003] 3 S.C.R. 263; 312 N.R. 305; 180 O.A.C. 201, refd to. [para. 24].

Carmichele v. Minister of Safety and Security (2001), 12 B.H.R.C. 60 (S.A. Const. Ct.), refd to. [para. 25].

Hamilton v. Minister of Safety and Secur­ity, 2003 (7) B.C.L.R. 723 (C), refd to. [para. 25].

Sullivan v. Moody, [2002] L.R.C. 251 (Aust. H.C.), refd to. [para. 25].

Rondel v. Worsley, [1969] 1 A.C. 191 (H.L.), refd to. [para. 27].

Hall (Arthur J.S.) & Co. v. Simons, [2002] 1 A.C. 615; 258 N.R. 1 (H.L.), refd to. [para. 27].

Z. et al. v. United Kingdom (2001), 34 E.H.R.R. 97 (Eur. Ct. Hum. Rgts.), refd to. [para. 27].

Williams et al. v. Natural Life Health Foods Ltd. et al., [1998] 1 W.L.R. 830; 225 N.R. 368 (H.L.), refd to. [para. 29].

Brown v. Stott, [2000] N.R. Uned. 256; [2003] 1 A.C. 681 (P.C.), refd to. [para. 31].

Authors and Works Noticed:

Halsbury's Laws of England, vol. 36(1), para. 524 [para. 30].

Laws of Scotland, Stair Memorial Ency­clopedia (1995), para. 1784 [para. 30].

Moylan, John F., Scotland Yard and the Metropoli­tan Police (1929), generally [para. 30].

Stephen Lawrence Inquiry: Report of an Inquiry by Sir William Macpherson of Cluny (1999), Cm 4262-I, generally [para. 1 et seq.].

Counsel:

Not disclosed.

Solicitors of Record:

Not disclosed.

This appeal was heard at London, England, before Lord Bingham of Cornhill, Lord Nicholls of Birkenhead, Lord Steyn, Lord Rodger of Earlsferry and Lord Brown of Eaton-under-Heywood of the House of Lords. The deci­sion of the house was given on April 21, 2005, when the follow­ing speeches were delivered:

Lord Bingham of Cornhill - see para­graphs 1 to 4;

Lord Nicholls of Birkenhead - see para­graphs 5 and 6;

Lord Steyn - see paragraphs 7 to 36;

Lord Rodger of Earlsferry - see para­graphs 37 and 38;

Lord Brown of Eaton-under-Heywood - see paragraph 39.