MPs Move to Overturn Court Ruling Granting Police Immunity from Civil Lawsuits

A cross-party group of backbench MPs is attempting to reverse a Court of Appeal judgment that they warn will have severe repercussions for crime victims seeking justice through the civil courts. Conservative MP Andrew Mitchell and Labour's Jess Phillips have jointly submitted an amendment to legislation scheduled for parliamentary debate on Tuesday, aiming to counteract a 2025 ruling that significantly broadens police immunity from civil litigation in England and Wales.

The controversial judgment held that police officers cannot be sued civilly either for their role as witnesses or for their conduct and statements made during criminal investigations. This expansion of so-called "core immunity" — a legal principle traditionally protecting what witnesses and lawyers say in court so they can speak freely — now shields an extensive range of police activities from legal challenge, including conduct that forms part of an investigation leading to a potential prosecution.

According to the MPs, this immunity blocks most types of legal claims, encompassing serious human rights abuses and data breaches, with no exceptions made even for unjustifiable conduct. The amendment they have drafted states that, except when officers are acting as witnesses, no immunity should apply to police actions taken in preparation for criminal proceedings, particularly in cases involving specified grave failings. These include situations where police have fabricated evidence, behaved dishonestly or negligently, or recklessly disclosed confidential information relating to victims.

The ruling stemmed from a case involving a victim of serious domestic violence who had fled her abuser to a secret refuge. Sussex Police included her new address in a file sent to the Crown Prosecution Service without adequately flagging its confidential nature. A CPS lawyer then disclosed the address in open court during a bail hearing, revealing it to her abuser and forcing her to flee once more. The woman described how the place she was supposed to be safe "no longer felt safe at all," and said she continues to live with the consequences of that loss of security.

She pursued claims against both Sussex Police and the CPS, arguing that their failures left her fearing for her life, compelled her to leave her home, caused her to lose earnings, and led to her developing a psychiatric injury. Her claims were initially rejected, then reinstated on appeal, before being struck out once more. The central legal question concerned who could be held responsible for what occurred and who would benefit from legal immunity.

Mitchell told BBC News that the police misconduct immunity created by the Court of Appeal's ruling was extremely concerning, warning that failing to close what he described as a legal loophole would have devastating consequences for victims. He pointed to the case of Ali Kololo, a Kenyan woodcutter who spent 11 years in prison after being wrongfully convicted of assisting a gang that attacked two British tourists in Kenya in 2011, one of whom was murdered.

Mr Kololo was sentenced to death following a trial in Kenya at which a senior Metropolitan Police officer, called to appear as a prosecution witness, omitted key evidence. He is now suing the Met, represented by the human rights group Reprieve. However, the force has indicated it will rely on the legal principle of core immunity in defending the claim — a position likely to be strengthened by the Court of Appeal ruling. A Met spokesperson declined to comment on the ongoing civil claim but said the force's thoughts were with Mr Kololo, the victims of the crime, and their families.

Beyond the parliamentary manoeuvre, the judgment could also be overturned through a separate Supreme Court appeal expected later this month. This dual-track approach reflects the depth of concern the ruling has generated across political and legal circles.

Kate Ellis, from the Centre for Women's Justice, told the BBC that police forces may now argue they cannot be held legally responsible at all for serious mistakes made during criminal investigations. She warned this could create an accountability gap in which forces that fail to investigate rapists, stalkers, or domestic abusers face no consequences for their failings. Such an outcome, she suggested, would undermine public confidence in the justice system and leave victims without meaningful recourse.

A government spokesperson said the home secretary and lord chancellor had commissioned a review into police accountability following long-standing concerns from policing leaders, officers, victims, and their families that the current system is not fit for purpose. The spokesperson added that any changes to how the police are treated should be considered alongside the wider findings of that review.

While officers can still face criminal prosecution and disciplinary proceedings through police misconduct processes, the MPs argue that these routes are insufficient to address the harm suffered by victims of investigative failures. Civil litigation, they contend, provides a vital mechanism for accountability and compensation that the Court of Appeal ruling has effectively removed.

Sussex Police and the National Police Chiefs Council both declined to comment at this time.