Former senior government ministers have called for the removal of police and Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) immunity from lawsuits related to investigative errors, arguing that such protections harm victims of crimes, including domestic abuse. The appeal comes amid a Supreme Court case involving a domestic violence survivor who was prevented from suing Sussex Police after her confidential address was disclosed to her abusive former partner.
The woman—referred to only as XGY—was forced to flee her home and has suffered post-traumatic stress disorder following the disclosure, which occurred in court by a CPS lawyer. Sussex Police had failed to mark her address as confidential when submitting evidence to the prosecution. Her former partner had a history of violence, including rape, death threats, and an acid attack.
Traditionally, witnesses and lawyers in court are protected by “core immunity,” shielding them from being sued for statements or actions made during legal proceedings. However, a Court of Appeal ruling extended this immunity to cover a wide range of police activities conducted outside of court in the course of investigations. This broad application barred XGY from pursuing legal action against Sussex Police and the CPS. The Supreme Court is expected to issue a ruling on the appeal in the near future.
Jess Phillips, a former Labour Home Office minister, and Sir Andrew Mitchell, a former Conservative deputy foreign secretary, criticized the Court of Appeal’s ruling for significantly expanding the immunity scope. They warned it could create an “accountability black hole” by making it difficult for victims of misconduct or negligence during police investigations to seek redress.
The pair questioned whether such immunity would apply in cases involving withheld exculpatory evidence, leaks of sensitive information, or reckless endangerment of victims by law enforcement. They cited the example of John Worboys, the “black cab rapist,” whose victims sued the Metropolitan Police for failures that allowed him to continue assaulting women over several years. They noted the Met might have successfully invoked this expanded immunity defense to avoid liability. Additionally, they referenced ongoing civil claims involving another victim, Ali Kololo, where the Metropolitan Police have indicated plans to rely on immunity defenses.
Phillips and Mitchell emphasized the current difficulty of bringing successful civil claims against police or prosecutors, which are usually limited to cases involving egregious misconduct resulting in serious harm. They expressed concern that further narrowing legal accountability would cause substantial damage to victims’ rights. Urging the Supreme Court to reverse the expanded immunity interpretation, they called for police to be held to the same legal standards as other individuals. They added that if the court does not act, the government must intervene, with bipartisan support, to close what they describe as a dangerous loophole in accountability.