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

A cross-party group of backbench MPs is attempting to reverse a controversial court judgment that they argue shields police officers in England and Wales from being sued over serious investigative failures, warning that victims of crime will otherwise be left without legal recourse.

Conservative MP Andrew Mitchell and Labour MP Jess Phillips have jointly tabled an amendment to legislation scheduled for debate in Parliament on Tuesday, aiming to strike down the 2025 Court of Appeal ruling. According to the two MPs, the judgment carries "devastating consequences" for people harmed by police misconduct because it prevents them from pursuing civil claims even in cases involving grave errors during criminal investigations.

The Court of Appeal decision established that police officers enjoy immunity from civil litigation not only when they serve as witnesses but also for their conduct and statements while conducting criminal investigations that could lead to a prosecution. The ruling significantly broadened the scope of what is legally known as "core immunity," a protection traditionally reserved for witnesses and lawyers so they can speak candidly in court proceedings.

Under the expanded interpretation, most forms of legal action against police are now blocked, encompassing claims involving serious human rights violations and data protection breaches. Notably, the ruling contains no exceptions for unjustifiable conduct, meaning officers cannot be sued even when their actions are found to be dishonest, negligent, or reckless.

The case that triggered the judgment involved a victim of severe domestic violence who had fled her abuser and was living in a secret refuge. Sussex Police included her new address in a file forwarded to the Crown Prosecution Service without adequately marking the information as confidential. A CPS lawyer then revealed the address during a bail hearing in open court, exposing the woman's location to her abuser and forcing her to flee once again.

The woman described how the disclosure shattered her sense of safety, stating that the place she was supposed to be secure "no longer felt safe at all." She continues to live with the aftermath of the incident and the loss of security it caused. Her legal claims against both Sussex Police and the CPS argued that their failures placed her in fear for her life, forced her to abandon her home, caused her to lose earnings, and led her to develop a psychiatric injury.

Her claims were initially rejected, then reinstated on appeal, before being struck out again. The central legal question was who could be held responsible for the harm she suffered and who qualified for legal immunity. While witnesses and lawyers have long enjoyed core immunity for statements made in court, the Court of Appeal extended that protection to a far broader range of police activities.

The amendment proposed by Mitchell and Phillips specifies that, except when officers are acting as witnesses, no immunity should apply to police actions taken in preparation for criminal proceedings, including cases involving particular grave failings. The measure is designed to close what the MPs describe as a legal loophole created by the Court of Appeal's decision.

Mitchell told BBC News that the "police misconduct immunity created by the Court of Appeal's ruling" was deeply troubling. He warned that failing to address the issue would have severe repercussions for victims. The separate Supreme Court appeal, also scheduled to be heard this month, could potentially overturn the judgment independently of parliamentary action.

Mitchell highlighted 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 the tourists was murdered. Kololo was sentenced to death following a trial in Kenya at which a senior Metropolitan Police officer called as a prosecution witness omitted crucial evidence.

Kololo, who is represented by the human rights organization Reprieve, is now suing the Metropolitan Police. However, the force has indicated it will invoke the principle of core immunity in its defense, a position likely to be reinforced by the Court of Appeal's ruling. A Met spokesperson declined to comment on the ongoing civil claim but said the force's thoughts were with Kololo, the victims of the original crime, and their families.

Kate Ellis of 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 in a criminal investigation." She cautioned that this could produce an "accountability gap" in which forces that fail to properly investigate rapists, stalkers, or domestic abusers face no consequences for their shortcomings.

A government spokesperson noted that the home secretary and lord chancellor had commissioned a review into police accountability following longstanding 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 police are treated should be considered alongside the broader findings of that review.

Sussex Police and the National Police Chiefs' Council both declined to comment when approached. The parliamentary debate on Tuesday will determine whether the amendment progresses, while the forthcoming Supreme Court appeal adds another layer of uncertainty over the future of police civil liability in England and Wales.