LONDON (Dispatches) – UK’s Backbench MPs are seeking to roll back a court ruling they say will have “devastating consequences” for victims of crime by preventing them taking legal action against the police, even when there have been grave investigative failings.
The 2025 Court of Appeal judgment, which applies to England and Wales, held that police officers are immune from civil litigation both in their role as witnesses, and for conduct or statements they make when carrying out criminal investigations.
Conservative Andrew Mitchell and Labour’s Jess Phillips have submitted an amendment to a bill being debated in Parliament next week seeking to counteract the ruling.
Separately, the judgment could also be overturned at a Supreme Court appeal this month.
The MPs are seeking to stop immunity applying, including in cases where police have fabricated evidence, been dishonest or negligent, and where there has been a reckless disclosure of confidential information relating to victims.
The ruling came in a case brought by a victim of serious domestic violence who fled her abuser for a secret refuge, but Sussex Police included her new address in a file sent to the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) without sufficiently flagging its confidentiality.
A CPS lawyer subsequently disclosed her address in court during a bail hearing, thereby revealing it to her abuser. As a result, she had to flee again.
The woman said the disclosure of her address had meant the place she was supposed to be safe “no longer felt safe at all” and she was still living with the impact of what happened and that loss of security.
She brought claims against both the police and CPS, arguing their failure placed her in fear for her life, compelled her to leave her home, caused her to suffer loss of earnings, and resulted in her developing a psychiatric injury. Her claims were initially rejected, reinstated on appeal, then struck out again.
The key issue was who could be held legally responsible for what happened, and who would benefit from legal immunity. Witnesses and lawyers have what is known as “core immunity” for things they say in court, so that they can speak freely there.
The Court of Appeal ruling further expanded such immunity, holding that it extends to an extremely broad range of police activity, including conduct or statements which are part of an investigation leading to a potential prosecution
Most types of legal claim are thus blocked by this immunity, including cases about serious human rights abuses and data breaches, and there are no exemptions for unjustifiable conduct.
Officers can still be prosecuted in the criminal courts and held accountable by police misconduct processes.