Auto Amazon Links: No products found.
Backbench Members of Parliament are pushing to overturn a recent court decision that they warn will have severe repercussions for victims of crime. The ruling, made by the Court of Appeal in 2025 and applicable to England and Wales, has established that police officers enjoy immunity from civil lawsuits both when acting as witnesses and for conduct or statements made during criminal investigations. Critics argue this immunity could prevent victims from seeking justice even in cases involving serious investigative failures.
Conservative MP Andrew Mitchell and Labour’s Jess Phillips have introduced an amendment to a bill scheduled for debate next week in Parliament, aiming to counteract the effects of this ruling. Their proposed change seeks to remove police immunity in situations where officers have engaged in gross misconduct, including fabricating evidence, dishonesty, negligence, or the reckless disclosure of confidential victim information. At the same time, the ruling might also be challenged in an imminent Supreme Court appeal.
The controversy arose following a case involving a domestic violence survivor who had escaped her abuser by relocating to a confidential safe house. Sussex Police, however, included her new address in a file sent to the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) without adequately marking the sensitive nature of the information. This oversight led to a CPS lawyer revealing the victim’s address during a bail hearing, effectively exposing her location to her abuser and forcing her to flee once more. The victim described the disclosure as stripping away her sense of safety, an impact she continues to endure. She pursued legal action against both Sussex Police and the CPS, citing fear for her life, forced displacement, financial losses, and psychiatric injury. While her claims were initially dismissed, they were reinstated on appeal before ultimately being struck out again.
The core legal question centers on responsibility for these failures and the extent of legal immunity. Traditionally, witnesses and lawyers benefit from “core immunity,” protecting their courtroom statements to ensure candid testimony. The Court of Appeal extended this immunity much further, covering a wide range of police actions taken during investigations that could lead to prosecution. Consequently, most civil claims—including those related to grave human rights violations or data breaches—are blocked, with no exceptions for egregious misconduct. Although police officers remain subject to criminal prosecution and internal disciplinary measures, this ruling restricts victims’ ability to hold them civilly accountable.
The forthcoming amendment from Mitchell and Phillips clarifies that police officers should not benefit from immunity—except when acting as witnesses—for actions undertaken in preparation for criminal cases, especially where serious failings occur. Andrew Mitchell emphasized to BBC News his deep concern about the consequences of the Court of Appeal’s decision, warning that failing to close this legal gap could have devastating effects on victims. Mitchell highlighted the case of Ali Kololo, a Kenyan woodcutter whose life was shattered by a wrongful conviction largely influenced by Metropolitan Police misconduct. Kololo spent 11 years imprisoned after being wrongly found guilty of involvement in a 2011 attack on British tourists in Kenya, one of whom was killed. During his trial in Kenya, a senior Met officer failed to disclose crucial evidence while acting as a prosecution witness. Kololo, now represented by the human rights organisation Reprieve, is currently suing the Metropolitan Police, which has indicated it will invoke core immunity in its defence, a stance likely fortified by the recent court ruling. While the Met has declined to comment on the ongoing civil case, it expressed sympathy for Kololo and the victims’ families.
Kate Ellis from the Centre for Women’s Justice told the BBC that the ruling could lead to a legal accountability vacuum, whereby police forces may argue they cannot be held liable for serious investigative mistakes. She warned this might result in no consequences for failures to properly investigate offences such as rape, stalking, or domestic abuse. A government spokesperson noted that the home secretary and lord chancellor have commissioned a review into police accountability following longstanding concerns from police leadership, officers, victims, and their families about the adequacy of the current system. The spokesperson stressed that any changes to police legal protections would be considered alongside the broader findings of this review. Meanwhile, Sussex Police and the National Police Chiefs Council have both declined to comment on the matter at this time
Read the full article from The BBC here: Read More
Auto Amazon Links: No products found.